Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 58 views

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) The IJ denied Igiehon's third request for a continuance to correct inaccuracies in his asylum application regarding his nationality and date of entry to the United States. The IJ and BIA determined he had ample time previously to amend his application and did not show good cause for another delay. 2) The IJ and BIA found Igiehon not credible due to inconsistencies about his nationality, which goes to the heart of his asylum claim. Despite Igiehon's explanations, the adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. 3) Because Igiehon's claims lacked credibility, he could not meet the burdens of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    58 views6 pages
    1) The IJ denied Igiehon's third request for a continuance to correct inaccuracies in his asylum application regarding his nationality and date of entry to the United States. The IJ and BIA determined he had ample time previously to amend his application and did not show good cause for another delay. 2) The IJ and BIA found Igiehon not credible due to inconsistencies about his nationality, which goes to the heart of his asylum claim. Despite Igiehon's explanations, the adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. 3) Because Igiehon's claims lacked credibility, he could not meet the burdens of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-10-20 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-2494

    Original Title

    Esosa Igiehon v. Atty Gen USA, 3rd Cir. (2011)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The IJ denied Igiehon's third request for a continuance to correct inaccuracies in his asylum application regarding his nationality and date of entry to the United States. The IJ and BIA determined he had ample time previously to amend his application and did not show good cause for another delay. 2) The IJ and BIA found Igiehon not credible due to inconsistencies about his nationality, which goes to the heart of his asylum claim. Despite Igiehon's explanations, the adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. 3) Because Igiehon's claims lacked credibility, he could not meet the burdens of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    58 views6 pages

    Not Precedential

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) The IJ denied Igiehon's third request for a continuance to correct inaccuracies in his asylum application regarding his nationality and date of entry to the United States. The IJ and BIA determined he had ample time previously to amend his application and did not show good cause for another delay. 2) The IJ and BIA found Igiehon not credible due to inconsistencies about his nationality, which goes to the heart of his asylum claim. Despite Igiehon's explanations, the adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence. 3) Because Igiehon's claims lacked credibility, he could not meet the burdens of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 6

    NOT PRECEDENTIAL

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 11-2494
    ___________
    ESOSA NON IGIEHON,
    Petitioner
    v.
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
    Respondent
    ____________________________________
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    (Agency No. A096-272-353)
    Immigration Judge: Honorable Eugene Pugliese
    ____________________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    October 19, 2011
    Before: SLOVITER, GREENAWAY, JR., and COWEN, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: October 20, 2011)
    ___________
    OPINION
    ___________
    PER CURIAM
    Esosa Non Igiehon seeks review of a final order of removal. For the reasons that
    follow, we will deny the petition for review.
    I.
    Petitioner Esosa Non Igiehon entered the United States at an unknown time and

    place1 without being admitted. He conceded eligibility for removal and, in 2002, applied
    for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
    Torture (CAT). In his asylum application, Igiehon stated that he was a native and
    citizen of Ghana. However, he states that he recanted at his asylum interview and at his
    immigration hearing, stating that he was a Nigerian citizen and had never been to Ghana.
    Igiehon explained that his uncle helped him fill out the form over the telephone, and that
    he was misunderstood when he stated that his father had been born in Ghana. In April
    2009, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his third motion for a continuance. Igiehon
    renewed the motion, stating that he needed more time because his expert was unavailable
    and because the inconsistencies regarding his nationality required clarification. The IJ
    denied the request, noting that the case had already been pending for five years.
    At his hearing, Igiehon claimed that he had suffered persecution and feared future
    persecution based on his resistance to joining the Reformed Ogboni Fraternity (ROF), a
    cult-like organization in Nigeria. His father had been a member, and when his father
    died, the ROF demanded that he join and threatened to kill him if he refused. Igiehon
    testified that he reported the threats to the police, who were of no help, and went into
    hiding. The ROF pursued him until he was able to leave Nigeria.
    The IJ denied relief, finding that Igiehon was not credible due to the discrepancies
    surrounding his nationality and date of entry into the United States. The IJ also held that,

    In his brief, Igiehon states that he entered the United States on August 20, 2001.
    However, the IJ pointed out that Igiehon has presented three different dates of
    2

    even if Igiehon was credible, he had failed to demonstrate past persecution or a wellfounded fear of future persecution, and that he failed to meet the burden of proof for
    withholding of removal or CAT relief.
    The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined that the IJs adverse
    credibility decision was supported by substantial evidence, and determined that, as a
    result, Igiehon could not satisfy the burdens of proof necessary to establish eligibility for
    relief. The BIA also affirmed the denial of his third request for a continuance. Igiehon
    filed a timely petition for review.
    II.
    We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal under 8 U.S.C.
    1252(a)(1). See Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542, 547 (3d Cir. 2001). Where, as
    here, the BIA adopts the findings of the IJ and discusses some of the bases for the IJs
    opinion, this Court will review both opinions. See Xie v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 239, 242
    (3d Cir. 2004). We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations,
    for substantial evidence, see Mulanga v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 123, 131 (3d Cir. 2003),
    upholding them unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
    the contrary. 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228, 262 (3d
    Cir. 2003) (en banc). Because Igiehon filed his asylum application prior to the enactment
    of the REAL ID Act, the inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or falsehoods upon which the
    adverse credibility finding is based must go to the heart of his claims. See Lin v. Atty
    arrival in his asylum application, his testifmony, and a sworn written statement.
    3

    Gen., 543 F.3d 114, 119 (3d Cir. 2008).


    III.
    Igiehon first challenges the IJs denial of his request for a continuance. Our
    review of such a claim is for abuse of discretion. Ponce-Leiva v. Ashcroft, 331 F.3d 369,
    377 (3d Cir. 2003). The question of whether denial of a continuance in an immigration
    proceeding constitutes an abuse of discretion cannot be decided through the application
    of bright-line rules; it must be resolved on a case by case basis according to the facts and
    circumstances of each case. Id. (quoting Baires v. INS, 856 F.2d 89, 91 (9th Cir. 1988)).
    An IJ may grant a continuance for good cause shown. 8 C.F.R. 1003.29. Relevant
    considerations may include the nature of the evidence presented and its importance to the
    aliens claim and the number of continuances already granted. Baires, 856 F.2d at 91. It
    is an abuse of discretion for an IJ to deny a continuance solely on the basis of casecompletion goals without taking into consideration the circumstances of a petitioners
    case. Hashmi v. Atty Gen., 531 F.3d 256, 260-61 (3d Cir. 2008).
    Igiehons counsel moved for a third continuance shortly before Igiehons merits
    hearing to correct inaccuracies in the asylum application. The IJ noted that the
    application had been submitted and marked into evidence at a prior hearing, and that the
    case had been pending for five years, with previous continuances granted. Igiehon must
    have been aware of the inaccuracies as early as 2003 during his meeting with the asylum
    officer, but still chose to sign the application. The IJ determined, and the BIA agreed,
    that Igiehon had had ample time to amend or submit a new application or to provide a
    4

    sworn statement with updated information. We, too, agree that Igiehon failed to show
    good cause for another continuance, and we find that the IJ did not deny the continuance
    based solely on the basis of the age of the case. Moreover, we note that Igiehon never
    attempted to introduce into evidence or submit with any of his filings his Nigerian
    passport and birth certificate, which he claims he possesses. Accordingly, we agree with
    the BIA that the IJ did not abuse his discretion in denying Igiehons request for a
    continuance.
    Igiehon next claims that the adverse credibility finding is not supported by
    substantial evidence. He argues that the IJ and BIA discounted his consistent testimony
    at his immigration hearing and before the asylum officer. Furthermore, he argues, the IJ
    ordered him to be removed to Nigeria, which proves that the IJ did not truly doubt his
    nationality. Lastly, he claims that his testimony that he entered the United States in
    August 2001, as opposed to August 2002 as he stated in his application, should be found
    credible because it was a statement against his own interest. The BIA upheld the IJs
    adverse credibility finding based on serious questions about Igiehons identity. The
    IJs and BIAs basis for the finding is supported by substantial evidence, and his
    nationality goes to the heart of his claim for asylum. See Lin, 543 F.3d at 127.
    The BIA determined that because the IJs adverse credibility determination was
    sufficiently supported, it need not address the other inconsistencies that the IJ noted. We
    agree with the BIAs conclusion that because Igiehons claims lacked veracity, he could
    not meet the burdens of proof necessary for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
    5

    relief. See Matter of M-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 125, 129 (BIA 1995) (cited in Xie v.
    Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 239, 241-42 (3d Cir. 2004)). Thus, the BIA did not err in not
    remarking upon the IJs other bases for denying relief, including the lack of evidence
    corroborating his claims concerning the ROF. Accordingly, the BIAs decision to affirm
    the IJs denial of relief is supported by substantial evidence.
    IV.
    For the foregoing reasons, we will deny the petition for review.

    You might also like