Abushagif v. Garland, 15 F.4th 323

Abushagif, a Libyan national admitted as a nonimmigrant student, faced removal proceedings after failing to maintain a full course of study (DHS initiated removal in 2010).
He filed for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in Sept. 2011, then withdrew his application at a Dec. 2011 hearing and agreed to pre-conclusion voluntary departure (deadline Apr. 5, 2012); he did not leave.
In Jan. 2019 he moved to reopen, alleging materially changed country conditions in Libya, that his father (allegedly a former Qadhafi-regime employee) had been kidnapped and tortured by militias, and that Abushagif feared persecution as a former national-guard member, a convert to Christianity, and a bisexual man.
The IJ denied the motion citing material inconsistencies between the 2011 application and the 2019 motion and lack of corroboration; the BIA affirmed, finding Abushagif failed to establish a prima facie case though acknowledging country conditions had worsened for Qadhafi supporters and for Christians/bisexuals.
The Fifth Circuit held the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying reopening as to asylum/withholding (reasonable to rely on inconsistencies and lack of corroboration) but found the BIA failed to address the CAT claim and remanded for the BIA to consider it.

Issue	Abushagif's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Appropriate standard for BIA review of motions to reopen ("inherently unbelievable" vs. abuse-of-discretion)	BIA must accept facts in a reopening motion as true unless they are "inherently unbelievable," a forgiving, summary-judgment–like test	No judge-made presumption; review is highly deferential abuse-of-discretion per statute and precedent	Court refused to adopt the "inherently unbelievable" standard and applied abuse-of-discretion review
Whether BIA abused discretion in finding Abushagif failed to show a prima facie case of political persecution	Facts (national-guard service; threats to him and family) establish reasonable likelihood of persecution	BIA reasonably relied on material inconsistencies (omitted military service in 2011, discrepancies on father's injury/kidnapping)	BIA did not abuse discretion; inconsistencies made allegations unreliable
Requirement of corroboration for conversion to Christianity and bisexuality	His affidavit alone should suffice at reopening stage	BIA may require corroboration where reasonable; applicant must submit affidavits/other evidence	BIA reasonably required corroboration and did not abuse discretion in finding none supplied
Whether BIA addressed CAT claim / need for remand	BIA failed to analyze CAT claim raised in the motion; remand required	Gov't argued exhaustion or futility, so no remand needed	Court remanded for BIA to address the CAT claim (BIA must analyze CAT separately)

INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (BIA may deny a motion to reopen on three independent grounds)
Garland v. Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669 (courts may not impose judge‑made procedural requirements on the BIA; review limited to whether any reasonable adjudicator could have reached the agency's conclusion)
Gonzalez‑Cantu v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 302 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for reviewing BIA denials of motions to reopen)
Ramos‑Lopez v. Lynch, 823 F.3d 1024 (changed‑country‑conditions exception to the ninety‑day time limit for motions to reopen)
Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (CAT claims are analytically distinct from asylum/withholding and require separate consideration)
Eduard v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 182 (BIA must address asserted CAT claims)
Bizabishaka v. Mukasey, [citation="307 F. App'x 824"] (BIA may reasonably require corroboration in motions to reopen)