Maharaj v. Gonzales

Vinodh Maharaj (defendant) and his wife, Sunita Maharaj, entered the United States from Fiji, and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (plaintiff) initiated deportation proceedings before an immigration judge (IJ). In proceedings, Vinodh and Sunita Maharaj testified that they sought asylum in Canada in November 1987 because Vinodh’s sister lived in Edmonton. Vinodh and Sunita testified that they lived and worked in Canada for four years. Vinodh and Sunita complained of the stigma they faced when Canadians discovered their status as refugees. Vinodh and Sunita testified that they entered the United States in March 1991 before Canada adjudicated their refugee claim seeking better employment opportunities. Given the family’s safe, four-year residence in Canada while the government adjudicated their application, the IJ concluded the Maharaj family resided in Canada for a duration sufficient to support a presumption of permanent resettlement by the family in Canada. The IJ found that the testimony from Vinodh and Sunita did not rebut this presumption, barring them from seeking asylum. Vinodh and Sunita Maharaj appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which found the family ineligible for asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(2)(i)(B). Maharaj appealed the BIA decision to the Ninth Circuit, and a panel of the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for review. The Ninth Circuit reheard the case en banc to determine what evidence the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) needed to produce under 8 C.F.R.§ 208.13(c)(2)(i)(B).