Summary
The Second Circuit denied Yahya Ameen Musleh Al Saidi’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming the denial of deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The court held that an immigration judge may require reasonably available corroboration without first making an adverse credibility finding and that Al Saidi forfeited his challenge to the corroboration requirement before the BIA. The court also concluded that the agency’s denial was supported by substantial evidence, including the failure to establish a likelihood of torture.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the BIA abused its discretion in deeming forfeited Al Saidi's challenge to the IJ's corroboration requirement.
- Whether an IJ must make an adverse credibility finding before requiring corroboration.
- Whether an application for CAT relief may be denied for lack of corroboration.
- Whether the agency's denial of CAT relief was supported by substantial evidence.
Holdings
- We review a BIA determination of waiver or forfeiture for abuse of discretion.
- An immigration judge does not need to make an adverse credibility finding before requiring corroboration. The immigration judge may require corroboration whenever it would be reasonably expected to be available and would be helpful to his consideration of the case.
- The BIA did not abuse its discretion by treating a challenge to the corroboration requirement as forfeited.
- An application for CAT relief may be denied for lack of corroboration in the same manner as an application for asylum or statutory withholding of removal.
- The decision of the agency that Al Saidi failed to meet his burden was supported by substantial evidence.
Key quotations
“An immigration judge does not need to make an adverse credibility finding before requiring corroboration. The immigration judge may require corroboration whenever it would be reasonably expected to be available and would be helpful to his consideration of the case.” (slip op. at 20-21)
“We conclude that an application for CAT relief may be denied for lack of corroboration in the same manner as an application for asylum or statutory withholding of removal.” (slip op. at 27)
“Because Al Saidi's failure to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence was a valid basis for denying an application for relief under the CAT, the agency did not err by relying on that ground for dismissal here.” (slip op. at 28)
“The decision of the agency that Al Saidi failed to meet his burden was supported by substantial evidence.” (slip op. at 29)
Factual background
Al Saidi, a native of Yemen, feared persecution from the Balwi family due to a feud. He was convicted of first-degree assault for stabbing two Balwi family members in Yonkers, New York. He sought deferral of removal under the CAT, claiming he would be tortured if returned to Yemen. The IJ denied relief based on Al Saidi's failure to provide reasonably available corroboration from his wife, sister, and adoptive father, and because his claim depended on a speculative chain of future events.
Procedural history
The IJ denied Al Saidi's application for CAT relief on two independent grounds: lack of corroboration and failure to establish a likelihood of torture. The BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ's decision, concluding that Al Saidi forfeited any challenge to the corroboration requirement. Al Saidi timely petitioned for review.