## Facts

- The respondent, a Jamaican national and lawful permanent resident since 1971, was placed in removal proceedings based on multiple criminal convictions.
- DHS charged removability for two or more crimes involving moral turpitude and later added controlled-substance and aggravated-felony (drug trafficking) charges.
- During master calendar hearings, the respondent struggled to answer basic biographical questions and reported a schizophrenia diagnosis and lack of treatment while detained.
- The record included evidence the respondent had previously been found incompetent in a related criminal proceeding.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) found the respondent removable, found him ineligible for relief, and ordered removal without conducting a formal competency inquiry or making explicit competency findings.
- The respondent appealed and sought remand, arguing the IJ failed to assess competency and that proceedings required a defined framework for mentally ill respondents.

## Issues

1. What standard governs whether a respondent is mentally competent to participate in removal proceedings?
2. When do indicia of incompetency require an IJ to conduct further inquiry into competency?
3. If a respondent lacks sufficient competency, what safeguards must or may be used to ensure a fair hearing?
4. Must an IJ explicitly state the competency determination and the reasons for any safeguards chosen or rejected?

## Decision

- The BIA remanded for further proceedings.
- The BIA held respondents are presumed competent unless indicia of incompetency appear; when such indicia exist, the IJ must conduct further inquiry.
- The BIA adopted a functional test for competency tailored to removal proceedings.
- If competency is insufficient, the IJ must evaluate and implement appropriate safeguards to ensure a fair hearing.
- The BIA required IJs to articulate their reasoning on competency and safeguards to allow meaningful review.
- Applying these rules, the BIA found the IJ failed to adequately address multiple indicia of incompetency and failed to make an adequate record and findings.

## Legal Principles

- Respondents in removal proceedings are presumed competent; absent indicia of incompetency, no competency inquiry is required.
- Competency turns on whether the respondent (1) has a rational and factual understanding of the nature and object of the proceedings, (2) can consult with counsel or a representative if one is present, and (3) has a reasonable opportunity to examine and present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
- Indicia of incompetency—such as inability to answer basic questions, reported serious mental illness, treatment history, or prior incompetency findings—trigger a duty for the IJ to inquire further and develop the record.
- When a respondent lacks sufficient competency, the IJ must consider safeguards tailored to the respondent’s limitations to protect the fairness of the hearing; possible safeguards include participation by family/guardians, procedural modifications, continuances for evaluation or treatment, and limits on waivers or stipulations.
- IJs must explicitly state and explain competency determinations and the selection or rejection of safeguards.

## Conclusion

The BIA required IJs to assess competency when the record shows indicia of mental impairment, applied a functional three-part competency test specific to removal proceedings, and mandated case-specific safeguards and explicit findings; because the IJ failed to do so despite substantial indicia of incompetency, the case was remanded.


Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474 (B.I.A. 2011)