Olakunle Oshodi v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17991
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Oshodi, a Nigerian national, seeks withholding of removal and CAT relief after living in the U.S. since 1981.
- Oshodi alleges past persecution in Nigeria based on his political activities and family’s involvement; his declaration describes torture, detention, and threats.
- At the removal hearing, the IJ cut off Oshodi’s direct testimony about central persecution events, restricting him to information outside his asylum application.
- Oshodi’s credibility was adjudged adverse, in part due to aliases, lack of corroboration, and inconsistencies, leading to denial of relief.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and rejected Oshodi’s due process claim; the case was then reheard en banc by the Ninth Circuit.
- The court vacates the denial, holding a due process violation occurred and remands for a new hearing to allow full, live testimony on core events.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process violation from restricting testimony | Oshodi argues the IJ denied him the opportunity to testify about core persecution events. | The IJ limited testimony to prevent repetition of the written application; no due process violation. | Due process violated; remand for new hearing |
| Impact of live testimony on credibility assessment | Live testimony is essential for credibility determinations in credibility-based claims. | Credibility can be assessed with written submissions and cross-examination; live testimony not always required. | Live testimony is essential to a fair credibility analysis; require full hearing |
| Mathews v. Eldridge framework applied to asylum hearings | Mathews analysis supports the right to oral testimony in credibility-driven cases. | Mathews does not universally require oral testimony; depends on context. | Mathews factors favor requiring oral testimony in credibility-centered asylum proceedings |
| Prejudice standard for due process violation | Prejudice shown because the IJ’s restricted testimony likely affected the outcome. | Prejudice must be shown; some questions remain speculative about impact. | Prejudice established; could have altered credibility finding and outcome |
| Remand posture and relief | Oshodi should receive relief or a new hearing consistent with due process. | Not necessary to rule on merits; remand for proper hearing. | Petition granted in part and remanded for a new hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2000) (due process when IJ barred testimony related to written application)
- Kerciku v. INS, 314 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2003) (barring blocks of oral testimony violates due process)
- Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2005) (precluding significant testimony undermines credibility analysis)
- Zolotukhin v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2005) (live testimony critical to credibility; prejudice shown when barred)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (balancing test for due process in administrative proceedings)
- FDIC v. Mallen, 486 U.S. 230 (U.S. 1988) (due process may not require oral testimony in all administrative hearings; written submissions may suffice)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (deference to credibility findings; live testimony not always required)
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (cannot cherry-pick facts; must consider totality of evidence)