Oyeniran v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4669
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Oyeniran, Nigerian citizen, sought CAT deferral of removal; prior 2005 CAT grant based on attacks on his Archbishop father.
- Attacks in 2003 and 2004 on Archbishop attributed to Islamic extremists; evidence linked violence to religious-political posture.
- Archbishop testified in 2007 proceedings; expert and police reports supported home country risk and government acquiescence.
- In 2005, IJ and BIA found credible evidence could show torture if returned; 2009 proceedings denied deferral again.
- Oyeniran traveled to Nigeria in 2007 to visit his sick mother; security measures at hospital and church noted.
- December 2009 motion to reopen sought to admit a 2008 Nigerian arrest warrant accusing Oyeniran of inciting Sharia opposition; BIA denied.
- Ninth Circuit held collateral estoppel bars re-litigation of past torture findings and remanded for reconsideration with new evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel binds the BIA on past torture findings | Oyeniran | Holder | Yes; estoppel binds BIA on past issues |
| Whether new post-2005 evidence can affect deferral on remand | Oyeniran | Holder | Remand allowed to consider new evidence with prior findings as baseline |
| Whether the motion to reopen was properly evaluated under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 | Oyeniran | Holder | BIA abused discretion; reopening granted for new arrest-warrant evidence |
| Effect of the arrest warrant against Oyeniran on CAT relief | Oyeniran | Holder | Warrant material; merits must be reconsidered on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1991) (repose principle for losing litigant on identical issues)
- Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1979) (four-factor test for collateral estoppel)
- Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 966 F.2d 1318 (9th Cir. 1992) (collateral estoppel prerequisites in appellate review)
- United States v. Lasky, 600 F.2d 765 (9th Cir. 1979) (issues must be identical and decided in prior proceeding)
- Belayneh v. INS, 213 F.3d 488 (9th Cir. 2000) (changing country conditions can affect relief determinations)
- Al Mutarreb v. Holder, 561 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2009) (deferral can be reevaluated with new facts)
- Ghahremani v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for motion to reopen)
- Arrozal v. INS, 159 F.3d 429 (9th Cir. 1998) (new evidence must be material and not previously available)
- Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2010) (persecution directed at petitioner supports CAT claim)