Judith Mutie-Timothy v. Loretta E. Lynch, 811 F.3d 1044

Mutie-Timothy, a Kenyan national, admitted as a student in 1998, married U.S. citizen Tywan Wortham in 2004 and received conditional LPR status; CIS terminated that status in 2007 for marriage fraud.
DHS initiated removal proceedings charging termination of conditional status and marriage fraud; CIS investigation found inconsistencies showing the couple did not cohabit as claimed and that Mutie-Timothy misrepresented employment and residence.
At IJ hearings, the IJ found significant inconsistencies in Mutie-Timothy’s testimony (including about abuse and paternity), questioned the DNA evidence because she collected and mailed samples herself, and concluded she lacked credibility, ordering removal in 2009.
While appeals were pending, CIS approved Mutie-Timothy’s VAWA self-petition; the BIA remanded for the IJ to consider adjustment of status and any new evidence, while noting support for the IJ’s credibility findings.
On remand the IJ again found marriage fraud, denied adjustment of status and a fraud waiver in the exercise of discretion; the BIA affirmed, holding the IJ need not defer to CIS’s VAWA approval and that the discretionary denials were supported by the record.
The Eighth Circuit dismissed review of the discretionary denials for lack of jurisdiction and denied Mutie-Timothy’s due-process claim for failing to show prejudice from any procedural error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IJ must defer to CIS VAWA approval when denying adjustment of status	IJ erred by refusing to adjust status despite CIS finding marriage bona fide	IJ may independently assess credibility and discretion; VAWA approval not dispositive	BIA and court held IJ not required to defer; adjustment denial is discretionary and nonreviewable
Whether denial of fraud waiver (8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(1)(H)) was erroneous	Mutie-Timothy argued she qualified as a VAWA self-petitioner and merited waiver	Government: waiver denial is discretionary and supported by credibility findings	Court dismissed review of discretionary waiver denial for lack of jurisdiction
Whether adverse credibility finding was clearly erroneous	Mutie-Timothy did not directly challenge the credibility finding on appeal; argued VAWA approval undermines it	Government relied on record inconsistencies and IJ’s demeanor assessment	Court found substantial evidence supported adverse credibility finding and BIA adoption of IJ’s facts
Whether Mutie-Timothy received a fair hearing (due process)	She claims remand hearing procedures violated due process	Government contends proceedings were fair; any errors were not prejudicial	Court assumed jurisdiction over the constitutional claim but denied relief for failure to show fundamental error and prejudice

Diallo v. Holder, 715 F.3d 714 (8th Cir.) (standard: review de novo whether court has subject-matter jurisdiction)
Dukuly v. Filip, 553 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir.) (factual arguments cannot overcome jurisdictional bar to review discretionary relief)
Hailemichael v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 878 (8th Cir.) (courts lack jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of certain immigration relief)
Fofanah v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir.) (review BIA as final agency decision, including IJ findings adopted by BIA)
Mohamed v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 522 (8th Cir.) (due process in immigration requires opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and manner)
Camishi v. Holder, 616 F.3d 883 (8th Cir.) (to prevail on due-process claim petitioner must show fundamental procedural error and prejudice)