Paltan-Daquilema v. Garland, 19-807

Petitioner Jose Antonio Paltan-Daquilema, an Ecuadorian national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on fears as an indigenous evangelical man who is divorced.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief on November 17, 2017, including an adverse credibility finding and a determination that petitioner failed to adequately corroborate his claim.
Petitioner submitted additional evidence nearly six months after the IJ’s deadline; the IJ rejected the late-filed evidence.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision on February 28, 2019, but did not reach the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because it concluded that even if petitioner were credible he failed to corroborate his claim and show a well-founded fear on account of a protected ground.
Before the Second Circuit petitioner challenged the denial of relief and argued the BIA should have remanded for consideration of the late evidence and should have reversed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
The Second Circuit reviewed the IJ decision as modified by the BIA, applied substantial-evidence review to factual findings and de novo review to legal questions, and denied the petition for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BIA should remand for IJ to consider evidence submitted after the IJ’s deadline	Paltan-Daquilema: BIA should have remanded because IJ erred in rejecting late evidence	Government: Petitioner failed to raise this specific challenge before BIA, so he exhausted administratively? (i.e., issue not preserved)	Denied review on this point for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; petitioner did not specifically raise the IJ’s rejection before the BIA, so court will not consider it
Whether BIA erred by not reversing IJ’s adverse credibility finding	Paltan-Daquilema: BIA should have reversed IJ’s adverse credibility determination	Government: Even assuming credibility, petitioner failed to corroborate his claim and show a nexus to a protected ground; BIA need not reach credibility if corroboration fails	Court upheld BIA’s approach; petitioner abandoned challenge to the corroboration finding by not contesting it on appeal, so BIA properly affirmed without addressing credibility

Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir. 2005) (court may review the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA when BIA does not reach an adverse credibility finding)
Wei Sun v. Sessions, 883 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 2018) (standard: substantial-evidence review for factual findings; de novo for legal questions)
Dedji v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2008) (IJ’s setting and enforcing of filing deadlines reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Steevenez v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2007) (issues must be raised with specificity before the BIA to preserve for judicial review)
Yueqing Zhang v. Gonzales, 426 F.3d 540 (2d Cir. 2005) (claim is abandoned if not raised in the appellant’s brief)