Abraham v. Holder
647 F.3d 626
7th Cir.2011Background
- Abraham is a Syrian Christian who entered the United States on a K-1 fiancé visa in 2004 and overstayed past the 90 days.
- She applied for asylum in 2005; the IJ deemed her asylum untimely and denied withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
- Her marriage-related narrative involves abuse by Al-Deri, threats to convert, and a challenged engagement with Dawood; she cites fear of honor killings if she returns to Syria.
- The IJ found numerous inconsistencies in her testimony and doubted credibility, also noting lack of timely corroboration.
- The BIA adopted the IJ’s conclusions, agreeing asylum was untimely and withholding of removal evidence insufficient, and dismissed the appeal.
- Abraham argues on appeal that the IJ/BIA applied an incorrect legal standard, and that substantial evidence supports her claims and corroboration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review asylum denial | Abraham argues for judicial review of asylum denial. | Holder contends the court has no jurisdiction to review untimely asylum denial under §1158(a)(3). | Court lacks jurisdiction; asylum portion is dismissed. |
| Proper application of materiality/change-of-circumstances in asylum timeliness | Changed circumstances justify late filing. | Agency proper in applying materiality; evidence insufficient. | Not reviewable as a pure legal question; agency findings on materiality affirmed through jurisdictional limits. |
| Standards for withholding of removal and credibility | Credibility and corroboration support withholding claim. | IJ/BIA credibility and corroboration requirements were properly applied; evidence inadequate. | Substantial evidence supports denial of withholding of removal. |
| Corroboration requirement under REAL ID Act | Abraham should have been given notice and opportunity to supply corroboration. | No additional notice required; corroboration can be demanded without separate hearing. | Real ID Act corroboration standards applied; no need for extra notice; agency properly required corroboration |
Key Cases Cited
- Restrepo v. Holder, 610 F.3d 962 (7th Cir. 2010) (limits review of asylum timeliness but allows constitutional questions)
- Khan v. Filip, 554 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2009) (review under §1252(a)(2)(D) is limited to pure questions of law)
- Vasile v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2005) (agonizing determinations about timeliness are unreviewable as discretionary)
- Krishnapillai v. Holder, 563 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2009) (REAL ID Act allows corroboration demand; agency discretion on credibility)
- Rapheal v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2008) (no need for additional notice to require corroboration)
- Kiorkis v. Holder, 634 F.3d 924 (7th Cir. 2011) (courts recognize limits on full exegesis of every contention but uphold agency credibility findings)
- Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2004) (substantial evidence standard for reviewing factual findings)