624 F. App'x 365
6th Cir.2015Background
- Stefan Dragnea, a Romanian national, entered the U.S. in 1999 as a crewman, overstayed, and later lived with his reconciled ex‑wife in Detroit.
- ICE initiated removal proceedings in 2011; Dragnea conceded removability and sought withholding of removal based on past persecution as a Roma and, alternatively, voluntary departure.
- At the merits hearing the IJ found numerous inconsistencies in Dragnea’s testimony and documentary evidence (employment history, a 1996 medical report, and a 1990 Tulcea prosecutor document) and questioned the authenticity of key documents.
- The IJ additionally found that Dragnea failed to produce readily available corroborating witnesses (ex‑wife, son, and an unidentified daughter‑in‑law) who were present or within reach, and denied voluntary departure as a discretionary sanction for dishonesty.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse‑credibility and corroboration determinations (with a narrow non‑affirmance regarding an unreviewed finding of document fraud), and Dragnea petitioned for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IJ’s adverse‑credibility finding was erroneous | Dragnea argued inconsistencies did not go to the heart of his claim and translation issues may have caused errors | IJ/BIA relied on multiple material inconsistencies and dubious documents that undermine credibility | Adverse‑credibility determination affirmed; no reasonable adjudicator compelled to find him credible |
| Whether corroboration was improperly required or unavailable | Dragnea contended corroboration was unavailable or unnecessary given his testimony and documents | IJ/BIA: family witnesses and originators of documents were available but did not testify or explain provenance | Corroboration requirement proper; Dragnea failed to show corroborating evidence was unavailable |
| Whether remaining evidence compels withholding of removal | Dragnea argued submitted evidence sufficed to show likelihood of persecution | Government relied on IJ/BIA credibility and corroboration findings to argue evidence insufficient | Withholding of removal denied; record does not compel contrary conclusion |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of voluntary departure | Dragnea argued he met statutory criteria for voluntary departure | Government asserted denial was discretionary and not reviewable absent a legal or constitutional question | Court lacks jurisdiction over discretionary denial; petition as to voluntary departure dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- El‑Moussa v. Holder, 569 F.3d 250 (6th Cir.) (REAL ID Act governs post‑May 11, 2005 asylum/withholding applications)
- Slyusar v. Holder, 740 F.3d 1068 (6th Cir.) (adverse‑credibility determination is fatal to asylum/withholding claims)
- Urbina‑Mejia v. Holder, 597 F.3d 360 (6th Cir.) (standards for corroboration requests and review)
- Karimijanaki v. Holder, 579 F.3d 710 (6th Cir.) (substantial‑evidence standard; agency findings conclusive unless reasonable adjudicator compelled to the contrary)
- Zhao v. Holder, 569 F.3d 238 (6th Cir.) (BIA adoption/supplementation of IJ reasoning forms basis for review)