Abraham Gebregziabher-Tekle v. Jefferson Sessions, 697 F. App'x 565

Petitioners Abraham Gebregziabher-Tekle and Askale Gebremariam-Hagoz, Ethiopian nationals, sought asylum claiming persecution based on political opinion and ethnicity; Askale additionally sought relief for childhood FGM.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied both asylum applications but granted Askale withholding of removal; the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decisions.
The IJ made an adverse credibility finding against Abraham and admitted forensic and documentary impeachment evidence (including an FDL report and an I-213 form) after providing opportunities for cross-examination and rebuttal.
The impeachment evidence contradicted Abraham’s claims that the Ethiopian government refused to renew his passport due to ethnicity and contradicted both petitioners’ accounts that they fled after an arrest warrant issued for Abraham.
The IJ denied Askale’s FGM-based asylum on discretionary grounds, finding she had helped perpetuate her husband’s fraud (omissions/misrepresentations about his time in Japan and the arrest), though she received withholding of removal; the BIA affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether substantial evidence supports IJ’s adverse credibility finding for Abraham	Abraham argued his testimony was credible and documentary impeachment was misplaced	DHS argued documents contradicted Abraham’s passport/flight story and supported adverse credibility	Court held substantial evidence supports IJ’s adverse credibility determination and denial of Abraham’s asylum claim
Admissibility of FDL report and other impeachment documents	Petitioners argued admission was unfair and prejudicial	DHS argued documents were probative and admission was fundamentally fair	Court held admission was proper: documents probative and IJ took steps (suspension, cross-exam, rebuttal) to ensure fairness
Whether BIA/IJ abused discretion in denying Askale asylum (despite FGM claim)	Askale argued she was entitled to asylum for FGM and family reunification should favor granting relief	DHS argued discretionary factors (fraud involving husband) justified denial of asylum though withholding granted	Court held denial of asylum was not an abuse of discretion; withholding of removal to Askale stands
Whether IJ properly considered family reunification before denying asylum to Askale	Askale argued family reunification required reconsideration of asylum grant	DHS argued fraud concerns outweighed reunification considerations	Court agreed with IJ/BIA that family reunification did not warrant reversing discretionary denial

Sanchez v. Holder, 704 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2012) (evidence admissible if probative and admission fundamentally fair)
Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) (procedural protections required when admitting rebuttal evidence in removal proceedings)
Gulla v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for BIA denial/grant of asylum is abuse of discretion)
Velarde v. INS, 140 F.3d 1305 (9th Cir. 1998) (definition of abuse of discretion: arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law)