Ibe v. Bondi
25-60002
| 5th Cir. | Sep 26, 2025Background
- Ibe, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions pro se for review of a BIA denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and dismissed Ibe’s CAT claim.
- The court reviews the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and legal conclusions de novo.
- IJ found inconsistencies between Ibe’s credible-fear interview and hearing testimony, plus evasive demeanor and a fraudulent passport stamp payment.
- The BIA’s decision relied on those findings to deny asylum and withholding; CAT relief was denied for lack of likelihood of torture.
- Ibe’s due-process claim is not sufficiently shown to establish substantial prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility sufficient evidence | Ibe contends credibility issues were not supported. | BIA/ IJ identified specific inconsistencies and demeanor concerns. | Substantial evidence supports adverse credibility ruling. |
| CAT claim adequately considered | Ibe argues CAT evidence was overlooked. | Record does not establish likelihood of torture; evidence speculative. | BIA affirmed denial of CAT relief. |
| Due-process claim viability | Ibe alleges procedural violations affected outcome. | No substantial prejudice shown; briefing insufficient. | Due-process claim rejected for lack of substantial prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Aviles-Tavera v. Garland, 22 F.4th 478 (5th Cir. 2022) (references review of issues waived on appeal)
- Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing BIA findings)
- Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131 (5th Cir. 2006) (substantial-evidence standard for asylum/ relief)
- Arulnanthy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586 (5th Cir. 2021) (totality of record in credibility determinations)
- Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2020) (credibility determinations require cogent reasons)
- Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2017) (country evidence must show individual likelihood)
- Qorane v. Barr, 919 F.3d 904 (5th Cir. 2019) (general country evidence has limited predictive value)
- Arteaga-Ramirez v. Barr, 954 F.3d 812 (5th Cir. 2020) (due-process prejudice standard and burden)
- Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284 (5th Cir. 2019) (adequate reasoning required for full and fair consideration)