The U.S. Court of Appeals reprimanded last week an immigration judge who is known for his prejudice against Chinese asylum seekers.

In a recent ruling, the higher court mandated the reopening and reassignment of the case handled by Judge Jeffrey Chase as a result of his perceived bias. Chinese immigration lawyers hailed the decision as justice finally served.

In 2004, one of Chase’s court case decisions was tried by the Second Circuit Court. The particular case concerned a plaintiff, who is only identified by his last name, Huang, and whose application for political asylum is based on China’s one-child policy.

Huang argued that his wife went through a forced abortion in China when she was carrying their second child. Huang worried that if he went back to China, he would also be forced to undergo a sterilization procedure. His application was denied by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Huang later hired a lawyer to appeal his case in front of Judge Chase. His primary evidence was a letter written by his hometown official to explain that Huang was punished because he violated the one-child policy.

But Chase rejected the appeal. In his ruling, he strongly suspected the authenticity of the letter, speculating that it was unlikely for a Chinese official to write a letter confirming a policy that the government openly denies of practicing. He also criticized the plaintiff for secretly giving away his first-born because it was a girl.

Huang, through his lawyer, appealed to the Circuit Court and received a favorable ruling on June 29. The Circuit Court ruled for a reopening of the case to further examine the evidence.

But according to Han-Bin Wong, Huang’s lawyer, the most significant part of the ruling was not the result, but the criticism from the appeals judges against their lower court counterpart.

In the ruling, Appeals Court judges pointed out that “this is a rare case where remand is required because of Judge (Chase’s) apparent bias and hostility toward Huang. The hearings included several instances of questioning by the immigration judge that were at least inappropriate and at worst indicative of bias against Chinese witnesses.”

The ruling then went on to recite some of the dialogues during Chase’s proceeding. At first, Chase insisted that the unemployed Huang to come back to the court after he found a job. When the lawyer pointed out that Huang was ineligible for employment under the law, the judge replied that, “By law, you can’t come to this country with a smuggler either. But he’s here. Everybody else has no papers and they are working in restaurants all over the country,” Chase added.

When Chase learned that Huang lived on 105th Street in the upper west side, he demanded to know why Huang lived in a “Hispanic neighborhood” instead of in Chinatown as “most of the people.”

Chase again interrupted Huang when he heard him saying that he moved to the United States because he was persecuted by the Chinese government.

Chase said, “Stop right there. Nobody talks like this. If you had a problem in China, you say ‘I had a problem in China.’ Nobody says to me ‘how was your day today’ and I say ‘I was persecuted by the government on account of my whatever.’ People don’t talk like that. Only people who are coached by snakeheads talk like that.”

Chase then launched into a diatribe against Chinese immigrants on the witness stand. At some point, according to the court transcript, Chase said that Chinese applicants would say one thing to each other “in a restaurant in Chinatown,” but once they sat in the “magic chair” of the witness stand, they were persecuted under the one-child policy.

The Appeals Court also pointed out that this was not the first time that Chase’s conduct of raised questions to his impartiality. For a long time, he has had long bias against Chinese petitioners.

The Appeals Court finally ruled that although the supervisory authority over Chase lies with the Attorney General, it is best to re-assign the case to another immigration judge to ensure justice in the court.