Trokon Diahn v. Todd Blanche

── Trokon Diahn v. Todd Blanche ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: May 05, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 24-2066 Doc: 74 Filed: 05/05/2026 Pg: 1 of 33 PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-2066 TROKON MORRIS DIAHN, Petitioner, v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. No. 24-2154 TROKON MORRIS DIAHN, Petitioner, v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. No. 25-1692 TROKON MORRIS DIAHN, Petitioner, v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. USCA4 Appeal: 24-2066 Doc: 74 Filed: 05/05/2026 Pg: 2 of 33 On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Argued: January 29, 2026 Decided: May 5, 2026 Before GREGORY, HEYTENS, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Petition granted, order vacated and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge Gregory wrote the opinion, in which Judge Benjamin joined. Judge Heytens wrote a separate opinion, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. ARGUED: Sahar R. Atassi, COOLEY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Gerald M. Alexander, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Brett A. Shumate, Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-2066 Doc: 74 Filed: 05/05/2026 Pg: 3 of 33 GREGORY, Circuit Judge: Trokon Diahn, a twenty-year-old man, was born in Cote d’Ivoire after his parents fled Liberia during the civil war. He left Cote d’Ivoire with his family when he was two years old and settled in the United States. But, unlike his parents, he never acquired lawful permanent resident status. Though he has spent his entire life in the United States and has no connection to Liberia, he is now facing removal to Liberia. Diahn’s proceedings before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) and the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) were fraught. Diahn came before the IJ pro se, so he had limited understanding of the legal standards he needed to meet and the evidence necessary to corroborate his claims. He was also incarcerated throughout his interactions with the IJ. Due to confusing communications from the IJ, Diahn sent relevant documentary evidence in support of his applications for relief to the incorrect immigration court. With an inadequate record before it, the IJ denied relief on all grounds. On appeal before the Board, and hampered by ineffective counsel, Diahn was unable to adequately present his claims, and his appeal was dismissed in full by the Board. He petitions for this Court’s review of the Board’s decision. Diahn argues that he did not receive a full and fair hearing before the IJ. We agree. For the reasons below, we grant Diahn’s petition for review, vacate the Board’s determination, and remand for further proceedings. 1 1 Because we grant the lead petition for review in Diahn’s case, No. 24-2066, and vacate the underlying order, we dismiss Diahn’s remaining petitions for review, Nos. 24-2154 and 25-1692, as moot.