Jose Goulart v. Merrick Garland

facts suggesting a diligent pursuit of her rights in the years between her removal and the change in law relevant to her case. Here, the panel explained that Goulart likewise failed to present any evidence suggesting that he diligently pursued his rights during the time between his removal in 2013 and when he learned of Sessions v. Dimaya in 2018. The panel further explained that Goulart did not support his motion with a declaration or any other evidence concerning his

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

GOULART V. GARLAND

actions between 2013 and June 2018; thus, even assuming that he was unaware of this court’s 2015 decision, the BIA did not act arbitrarily or irrationally in determining that Goulart failed to make reasonable efforts to pursue relief.

Concurring in the judgment, Judge VanDyke wrote separately to emphasize his view that the dissent misconstrued the due diligence standard and put forth a warped interpretation of Lona. Judge VanDyke wrote that a central flaw of the dissent was inappropriately assessing due diligence based on actual…