Summary
The Sixth Circuit denied Odinaka Ethelberth Nwosu’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of withholding of removal and cancellation of removal. The court held that substantial evidence supported requiring corroboration of Nwosu’s testimony concerning his father’s kidnapping and that Nwosu had not shown exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children. The court also concluded that the immigration judge provided adequate opportunities to explain the lack of corroborating evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals properly denied withholding of removal because Nwosu failed to provide reasonably available corroborating evidence of his father's alleged kidnapping.
- Whether the immigration judge provided Nwosu a sufficient opportunity to explain the absence of corroborating evidence.
- Whether the agency properly denied cancellation of removal because Nwosu failed to establish that removal would cause his children exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.
- Whether the court could review the agency's factual hardship findings and whether the agency applied the correct legal standard.
Holdings
- An immigration judge may require corroborating evidence even when an applicant's testimony is otherwise credible, and the agency's determination that corroborating evidence was reasonably available must be upheld unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude otherwise. The agency permissibly found that Nwosu should have produced police or court records and statements from relatives corroborating the alleged kidnapping.
- The agency satisfied the requirement to give Nwosu an opportunity to explain the absence of corroborating evidence because government counsel questioned him during cross-examination about missing family letters and official records, and Nwosu offered no adequate explanation.
- The agency properly denied cancellation of removal because Nwosu did not establish that his children's expected emotional and financial difficulties would rise to the level of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.
- The court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency's factual findings concerning hardship but may review legal questions and the mixed question whether the established facts satisfy the statutory hardship standard. The applicable review of the mixed question follows the statutory substantial-evidence standard.
Key quotations
“This “highly deferential” test forecloses Nwosu’s claim.” (5)
“Our caselaw required nothing else.” (7)
“In sum, a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to conclude that Nwosu’s “removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his children.” (10)
Factual background
Nwosu, a Nigerian citizen who entered the United States in 2002 and remained after his business visa expired, lived in Detroit with his U.S.-citizen partner and their three children. He sought withholding of removal based on his allegation that individuals kidnapped his father in Nigeria in 2004 and later threatened Nwosu. He sought cancellation of removal based on the claimed hardship his removal would cause his children, who would remain in the United States while their mother continued working full-time as a nurse.
Procedural history
The government placed Nwosu in removal proceedings in 2010 after his business visa expired, and he conceded removability. After a February 2022 hearing, the immigration judge denied withholding of removal for insufficient corroboration and denied cancellation of removal because Nwosu failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, and the Sixth Circuit denied Nwosu's petition for review.