Ajiyosola Solomon v. Attorney General United States
684 F. App'x 102
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Solomon, a Nigerian national, entered the U.S. using multiple identities and obtained lawful permanent resident status in 2008 after filing an I-360/I-485 based on marriage to a U.S. citizen; USCIS later found he had previously been married and had used another identity, rendering the adjustment fraudulent.
- USCIS denied Solomon’s naturalization application after discovering the prior marriage and his 1998 removal using a different name; removal proceedings began in July 2013 (within five years of adjustment).
- Solomon applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, claiming past persecution and threats in Nigeria for being Christian, supported by medical letters and unsworn affidavits.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Solomon not credible based on identity inconsistencies, contradictions between testimony and documents (including inconsistent travel to Nigeria and prior statements at a 1998 border interview), admissions he had lied under oath, and weak corroboration; the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision and dismissed Solomon’s appeal.
- Solomon challenged (1) the IJ’s jurisdiction under INA § 246(a), (2) the adverse credibility finding rejecting his asylum/CAT claims, and (3) alleged due process violations at the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Solomon's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under INA § 246(a) — whether removal proceedings were time-barred after adjustment | §246(a) bars removal proceedings more than five years after adjustment; proceedings initiated in 2013 were too late | Proceedings were initiated within five years of Solomon’s December 2008 adjustment; jurisdiction proper | Held: Proceedings timely; IJ had authority to order removal |
| Adverse credibility determination — whether IJ’s credibility finding was unsupported | Credibility errors and insufficient consideration of corroboration; testimony should be credited | Numerous material inconsistencies, identity doubts, prior contradictory statements, admissions of past perjury, and weak corroboration justify adverse finding | Held: Substantial evidence supports adverse credibility; asylum, withholding, and CAT relief denied |
| Corroboration sufficiency — whether submitted evidence rehabilitated testimony | Medical letters and affidavits corroborate attacks and fear | Corroboration was stale, non-specific, unsworn, and unverifiable; country-condition evidence mismatched Solomon’s region | Held: Corroboration inadequate to overcome credibility defects |
| Due process — whether IJ’s conduct/bias or failure to consider medication affected fairness | IJ was biased and failed to account for migraine medication that impaired testimony | Disagreement with findings ≠ bias; Solomon failed to timely disclose or provide evidence about medication effects; no substantial prejudice shown | Held: No due process violation established |
Key Cases Cited
- Xie v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2004) (reviewing BIA adoption of IJ findings and mixed-review standard)
- Lie v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 530 (3d Cir. 2005) (standards for upholding BIA factual findings)
- Pierre v. Att’y Gen., 528 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2008) (de novo review of legal determinations)
- Saliba v. Att’y Gen., 828 F.3d 182 (3d Cir. 2016) (limitations on initiating removal after improper adjustment)
- Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2003) (adverse credibility as factual finding; requirement for specific, cogent reasons)
- INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1992) (standard for establishing well-founded fear of persecution)
- Abdulrahman v. Ashcroft, 330 F.3d 587 (3d Cir. 2003) (burden on asylum applicants to establish eligibility)