Abduvakhob Alimbaev v. Attorney General United States
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18471
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Abduvakhob Alimbaev, an Uzbek national, entered the U.S. in 2001, lived in Philadelphia, and was later placed in removal proceedings after agents found terroristic videos on a shared apartment computer of prior roommates. He conceded removability.
- Alimbaev married U.S. citizens (one divorced; current wife Kia Crawford) and applied for adjustment of status and, later, asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after BIA remands.
- At two IJ hearings (2010 and 2014) the IJ found Alimbaev credible, rejected his ex-wife Gonzalez’s testimony that he enthusiastically watched violent terrorist videos, and granted adjustment of status (and alternatively withholding/CAT).
- The BIA reversed the IJ’s credibility finding, credited Gonzalez, deemed asylum untimely, denied withholding and CAT based on Alimbaev’s lack of credibility, and ordered removal.
- The Third Circuit reviewed whether the BIA properly applied the "clearly erroneous" standard in rejecting the IJ’s credibility finding and concluded the BIA misapplied the standard, vacating the BIA’s denial of relief and remanding for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BIA properly applied the "clearly erroneous" standard in overturning the IJ's credibility finding | Alimbaev: BIA failed to defer; IJ’s credibility findings were supported by demeanor, consistency, and detail and should stand | DHS/BIA: Record contains inconsistencies, implausible entry story, and unrefuted rebuttal evidence (ex-wife) justifying reversal | Court: BIA misapplied clear-error review—reversal was unsupported; remand required for BIA to defer to IJ or supply cogent reasons |
| Whether IJ had jurisdiction to adjudicate Alimbaev’s second adjustment application after BIA remand | Alimbaev: Remand was unlimited in scope so IJ had jurisdiction to consider adjustment | Government: BIA argued IJ lacked jurisdiction but also denied on merits; court must ensure correct opinion is reviewed | Court: IJ did have jurisdiction on remand; review proceeds of BIA's most recent opinion |
| Effect of credibility ruling on discretionary adjustment-of-status analysis | Alimbaev: Credible testimony supports positive hardship findings and counsels in favor of adjustment | DHS/BIA: If testimony is incredible, negative equities (videos, false applications) weigh against adjustment | Court: Because BIA wrongly rejected credibility, it must reconsider discretionary balancing with due deference to IJ’s factual findings |
| Whether withholding of removal and CAT findings require remand given credibility dispute | Alimbaev: IJ credited his fear of persecution/torture; testimony sufficed despite some lack of corroboration | DHS/BIA: Once testimony discredited, withholding/CAT fail on the merits | Court: Remand required so BIA can reassess withholding/CAT adopting IJ’s credibility determination and considering corroboration gaps |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (defines the clearly erroneous standard)
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (deference where two permissible views of evidence exist; greater deference for credibility findings)
- Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587 (3d Cir. 2003) (IJ’s unique role in credibility determinations and deference on review)
- Chen v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 212 (3d Cir. 2005) (warning against excessive focus on insignificant inconsistencies)
- Huang v. Attorney General, 620 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2010) (BIA must meaningfully consider the record as a whole when rejecting IJ findings)
- Jishiashvili v. Attorney General, 402 F.3d 386 (3d Cir. 2005) (credibility determined on cumulative effect of testimony)
- Kabba v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2008) (BIA may not substitute its judgment for IJ on credibility)
- Kaita v. Attorney General, 522 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 2008) (standards for withholding and CAT protection)