Tawani v. Garland
20-60265
| 5th Cir. | Jun 23, 2021Background:
- Petitioner Joel Eko Tawani sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal.
- The IJ made an adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies and implausibility in Tawani’s varying accounts.
- Tawani alleged the IJ abused process and that his due process rights were violated, but he did not raise that claim before the BIA.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision (giving the IJ’s decision weight only as it influenced the BIA) and applied substantial-evidence review to factual findings.
- The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the unexhausted due process claim and held the adverse-credibility determination was supported by permissible grounds; absent credible testimony, relief was properly denied.
- Disposition: appeal dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction and denied in part on the merits.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over alleged IJ abuse of process / due process claim | Tawani: IJ abused process and violated due process; court should review. | Government: Tawani failed to exhaust before the BIA; claim is review-barred. | Court: Lack of jurisdiction — claim unexhausted and correctable by the BIA, so cannot be reviewed. |
| Validity of adverse-credibility finding and denial of asylum/withholding/CAT | Tawani: Credibility determination was incorrect; record compels finding of credibility. | Government: Adverse-credibility finding based on inconsistencies/implausibility is supported by substantial evidence; without credible testimony relief is unwarranted. | Court: Adverse-credibility finding was supported by permissible grounds; substantial-evidence standard not met to overturn; relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaikh v. Holder, 588 F.3d 861 (5th Cir. 2009) (review the BIA decision; consider IJ only as it influenced the BIA)
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir. 2009) (substantial-evidence standard requires evidence so compelling no reasonable factfinder could discredit it)
- Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132 (5th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion required when the BIA could correct a procedural error)
- Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830 (5th Cir. 2003) (failure to address specific basis for an adverse credibility finding may constitute abandonment)
- Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220 (5th Cir. 2018) (standard for overturning credibility determinations)
- Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2020) (implausibility and inconsistencies are permissible bases for adverse-credibility findings)
- Chun v. I.N.S., 40 F.3d 76 (5th Cir. 1994) (without credible evidence the agency lacks a basis to grant relief)
- Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653 (5th Cir. 2012) (same principle regarding necessity of credible evidence for relief)