6 F.4th 734
7th Cir.2021Background
- Omowole, a Nigerian national, married Festus in 2007; Festus had won a U.S. diversity visa and Omowole obtained a derivative visa. They emigrated separately, lived apart in the U.S., and divorced in 2011.
- USCIS fraud-detection officer Nai Saelee interviewed Festus in 2013; Festus signed an affidavit admitting the marriage was a sham to obtain immigration benefits.
- At removal proceedings, the IJ credited Saelee and Festus’s affidavit, gave limited weight to Omowole and Festus’s courtroom recantations, and found Omowole removable for procuring entry by fraud.
- Omowole sought asylum/withholding based on abuse by a second husband (married in a traditional ceremony). A second IJ found her testimony not credible, invoked the REAL ID Act corroboration requirement, and denied relief for lack of corroboration.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed both IJs’ adverse credibility findings and denials. The Seventh Circuit reviewed and denied Omowole’s petition for review, finding the credibility determinations supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Omowole's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removability: Was visa procured by fraud via a sham marriage? | Marriage bona fide; she did not procure visa by fraud. | Festus’s signed affidavit and Saelee’s testimony show the marriage was a sham; inconsistencies and lack of corroboration undermine Omowole. | Affirmed: substantial evidence supports finding of sham marriage and removability. |
| Validity of Festus’s affidavit vs. his recantation/coercion claim | Festus was coerced by Saelee and recanted the affidavit; affidavit unreliable. | Affidavit and officer credible; recantations viewed skeptically and contradicted by record. | Affirmed: IJ reasonably rejected coercion claim and credited affidavit/officer. |
| Asylum/withholding: Did Omowole prove persecution and meet corroboration requirements? | She faces serious abuse if returned; cultural constraints and bride-price obligations prevent escape. | Omowole’s testimony was inconsistent, omitted abuse from initial application, and she failed to provide corroboration the REAL ID Act permits the IJ to require. | Affirmed: adverse credibility and lack of corroboration defeat asylum/withholding claims. |
| Standard of review: Did the Board/IJ err in credibility analysis? | Board failed to address coercion and overrelied on earlier IJ. | Board adopted and supplemented IJ findings; review is highly deferential and supported by record. | Affirmed: no extraordinary circumstances to overturn; substantial-evidence review sustained the credibility findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guzman-Garcia v. Garland, 996 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2021) (reviews BIA adoption of IJ findings and substantial-evidence standard)
- Cojocari v. Sessions, 863 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2017) (credibility findings sustained if supported by substantial evidence)
- Krishnapillai v. Holder, 563 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2009) (distinguish material lies from innocent mistakes; REAL ID Act credibility rules)
- Kadia v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 817 (7th Cir. 2007) (crediting material vs. immaterial inconsistencies)
- Alvarenga-Flores v. Sessions, 901 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2018) (REAL ID Act permits reliance on any inconsistency)
- Song Wang v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2007) (deferential review of credibility findings)
- Arnold v. Dittman, 901 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2018) (recantations are viewed skeptically)
- United States v. Ogle, 425 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005) (skepticism toward recantations)
- Surganova v. Holder, 612 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2010) (sham-marriage inquiry focuses on intent to establish a life together)