Ayub Luziga v. Attorney General United States, 937 F.3d 244

Ayub Luziga, a Tanzanian national who entered the U.S. lawfully years earlier, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud (losses ≈ $400,000–$1,000,000), received 21 months’ imprisonment, and was ordered to pay nearly $1,000,000 restitution.
He cooperated with prosecutors, testified against co-conspirators, and received threats (from a fleeing co-conspirator "Nzese" and his former parents‑in‑law); he credibly testified that people with government connections in Tanzania act with impunity.
DHS issued a final removal order but referred Luziga to EOIR for reasonable‑fear proceedings; he sought withholding of removal (INA), CAT withholding, and CAT deferral.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Luziga’s conviction a “particularly serious crime,” pretermitted withholding claims, and denied CAT deferral for failure to meet the burden of proof—emphasizing lack of corroboration of government acquiescence—without conducting the Abdulai corroboration inquiry.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, but the Third Circuit found both (a) the agency failed to apply the N‑A‑M‑ two‑step elements‑first framework properly in the particularly serious crime analysis and (b) the IJ failed to perform the Abdulai steps before penalizing lack of corroboration; the case was vacated and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the IJ/BIA properly applied the N‑A‑M‑ two‑step test for "particularly serious crime" (elements first, then facts/circumstances)	Luziga: agency skipped the required first step (considering the statutory elements of conspiracy) and conflated elements with case‑specific facts (e.g., loss amount)	Government: agency applied correct standard; citation to Kaplun and discussion of loss shows elements were considered	Court: Reversed and remanded — agency failed to apply N‑A‑M‑ correctly; must first analyze elements, then (if appropriate) consider facts/circumstances on remand
Whether the IJ complied with Abdulai before holding lack of corroboration against Luziga on his CAT deferral claim	Luziga: IJ never identified which facts required corroboration, never asked if he could produce corroboration, nor afforded opportunity to explain absence — Abdulai violation	Government: IJ noted corroboration but ultimately denied relief on the merits (burden of persuasion); corroboration was not determinative	Court: Reversed and remanded — IJ did not perform the Abdulai three‑step inquiry and improperly penalized lack of corroboration; new corroboration determination required

Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir. 2001) (establishes three‑step corroboration inquiry an IJ must follow before penalizing lack of corroboration)
Saravia v. Att'y Gen., 905 F.3d 729 (3d Cir. 2018) (applies Abdulai; vacatur/remand where IJ failed to provide opportunity to corroborate or explain absence)
Chukwu v. Att'y Gen., 484 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2007) (corroboration may be required for central, easily‑verified facts)
Denis v. Att'y Gen., 633 F.3d 201 (3d Cir. 2011) (defers to BIA’s N‑A‑M‑ framework for particularly serious crime analysis)
Kaplun v. Att'y Gen., 602 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2010) (upheld particularly serious‑crime determination for significant financial fraud; distinguished here)
Camara v. Att'y Gen., 580 F.3d 196 (3d Cir. 2009) (absence of an explicit adverse credibility finding means the applicant’s testimony is assumed credible)
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (U.S. 2010) (discusses limits of BIA adjudicatory authority)
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (framework for judicial deference to agency statutory interpretations)