Alejandro Saravia v. Attorney General United States
905 F.3d 729
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Alejandro Misael Melendez Saravia, a native of El Salvador, testified credibly that MS-13 members repeatedly threatened, assaulted, extorted him and targeted his relatives, prompting his relocation to the U.S.
- While detained in New Jersey in 2015, Saravia says MS-13 called his mother and threatened to kill him if deported; his mother and half-brother were available as potential corroborating witnesses.
- Saravia applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; asylum was denied as untimely, and the IJ denied withholding/CAT after finding key aspects insufficiently corroborated despite crediting his testimony.
- At hearing the IJ asked why Saravia had not submitted statements from his mother and half-brother; counsel explained time and translation constraints but the IJ did not provide formal advance notice of required corroboration or a chance to produce it before ruling.
- The Board affirmed, relying on Matter of L-A-C- to reject a notice/opportunity requirement; the Third Circuit found the Board failed to follow this Circuit’s precedent requiring notice and an opportunity to explain or supply corroboration.
- The Third Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings so Saravia can be given notice and an opportunity under Circuit precedent to provide or explain unavailability of corroborating evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ must give advance notice of what corroboration is expected and an opportunity to produce it before finding failure to corroborate | Saravia: Circuit precedent (Abdulai/Chukwu/Toure) requires notice and chance to explain or supply corroboration | Govt/Board: Matter of L-A-C- means no such IJ notice/opportunity is required under §1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) | Court: IJ must give notice and opportunity; Board erred in relying on Matter of L-A-C- contrary to Third Circuit law; vacated and remanded |
| Whether IJ’s corroboration finding can stand without applicant explaining unavailability of evidence | Saravia: Credible testimony alone may suffice unless trier of fact requires corroboration and affords opportunity to explain | Govt: Applicant bears burden to submit corroboration without prompting | Held: Meaningful review requires applicant be given chance to explain/produce corroboration; IJ’s denial without that chance was improper |
| Whether appellate review is limited to Board reasons only when Board adopts IJ decision | Saravia: Court may review both IJ and Board where Board adopts IJ and discusses bases | Govt: Review limited to Board’s stated reasons | Held: Court may review both where Board adopts and discusses IJ’s decision (standard applied) |
| Whether remand is required vs. deciding merits now | Saravia: Remand needed to permit proper corroboration inquiry and possible new evidence/testimony | Govt: (implicit) IJ/Board findings sufficient | Held: Remand required for new corroboration determination; merits not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir.) (establishing requirements for corroboration inquiry)
- Chukwu v. Attorney General, 484 F.3d 185 (3d Cir.) (holding IJ must give notice of expected corroboration and chance to explain)
- Toure v. Attorney General, 443 F.3d 310 (3d Cir.) (confirming IJ duty to develop record and appellate review requirements)
- Chen v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 212 (3d Cir.) (explaining the "clear probability" standard for withholding)
- Mulanga v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 123 (3d Cir.) (noting necessity of meaningful opportunity to establish claim)