R.K.N. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 701 F.3d 535

R.K.N. is a Kenyan national who arrived in the U.S. in 1998 on an F-1 visa and later sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on HIV-positive status and Mungiki affiliation.
He was denied entry in 2001 due to an expired visa and his asylum applications were initially denied by an IJ in 2005.
The BIA dismissed his appeal in 2006; it sua sponte reopened and remanded to a new IJ for re-hearing.
At the final hearing, the IJ denied relief in 2009 based on an adverse credibility finding.
The BIA incorporated the IJ’s findings, affirmed the denial, and did not address all arguments, including HIV-status and medical-records issues, but concluded the outcome would not change.
The court denies R.K.N.’s petition for review, upholding the BIA’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the BIA address all of R.K.N.’s claims?	R.K.N. contends the BIA failed to address HIV-status claim.	BIA incorporated IJ findings and did not need to separately analyze all claims.	No remand required; BIA’s incorporation sufficed.
Was the medical-records admissibility issue correctly resolved?	Records were produced per the IJ’s schedule and should have been admitted.	Evidence admissibility in immigration proceedings is not governed by traditional evidentiary rules.	BIA did not err; outcome unaffected.
Did the BIA properly apply pre-REAL ID Act standards or remand for misapplication?	Pre-Act inconsistencies to heart of claim should support adverse credibility; BIA misapplied standard.	BIA applied proper framework, relied on IJ’s findings, and did not need remand.	BIA did not err; no remand required.
Did the BIA adequately address whether the IJ relied on the correct credibility standard?	BIA should remand to align with In re S-B-, given misapplication of credibility standard.	No grounds to remand; the record supports the outcome under controlling law.	No remand; BIA’s decision permissible.

Hassan v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 513 (8th Cir. 2007) (adverse credibility findings may rebut multiple claims)
Falaja v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2005) (IJ is best positioned to assess credibility)
Mayo v. Ashcroft, 317 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 2003) (review of credibility findings with deference to BIA)
Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (deference to BIA when adopting IJ findings)
Onsongo v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 849 (8th Cir. 2006) (requires specific, cogent reasons for disbelief under pre-Act standards)
Omondi v. Holder, 674 F.3d 793 (8th Cir. 2012) (remand permitted when the BIA fails to address an argument on appeal)
In re S-B-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 42, 24 I. & N. Dec. 42 (BIA 2006) (remand when credibility grounds improper; reflects controlling law)
Jalloh v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 894 (8th Cir. 2005) (heart-of-claim standard pre-REAL ID Act interpretation guidance)
Singh v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 553 (8th Cir. 2007) (harmonizes pre-Act specific-cogent standard with REAL ID Act)
Nabulwala v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1115 (8th Cir. 2007) (limits on BIA fact-finding post-adoption of new standards)
Chenery Corp. v. SEC, 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (clear‑statement reform; agency must ground decisions in proper record)