Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071

Tijani, a Nigerian native and US permanent resident, had multiple California fraud convictions (1986, 1987, 1991, 1992, 1999) leading to removal proceedings.
IJ found 1991 and 1999 convictions as crimes of moral turpitude and 1999 as an aggravated felony; credited Tijani’s alleged religious conversion history inconsistently with earlier records.
IJ determined Tijani’s credibility was weak, describing him as the Boy Who Cried Wolf and denying asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
BIA affirmed the IJ’s results via streamlined procedure without an opinion; Tijani sought review in this court.
The court must decide CIMT status under Taylor/Gonzalez standards, and whether remand for relief consideration is appropriate given credibility and record issues.
The proceedings included contested venue, credibility, and the scope of relief, with remand to the BIA for further consideration of withholding and CAT relief, while asylum discretionary denial remains upheld.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Cal. Penal Code 532a(1) is categorically a CIMT	Tijani contends Kinney/Marmolejo-Campos require deferential, state-law-focused analysis; argues no explicit fraud mens rea element	Government asserts 532a(1) inherently involves fraud and CIMT under California law	Yes, 532a(1) involves fraud and CIMT (remand needed for relief analysis)
Whether Tijani’s 1999 conviction is an aggravated felony	N/A	N/A	Remanded for relief considerations; CIMT and aggravated felony issues are intertwined with remand scope
Whether the IJ/BIA properly handled Tijani’s credibility and need for corroboration	Argues lack of explicit credibility finding should not bar relief; corroboration may be unnecessary	Credibility undermined by past lies; corroboration necessary when testimony uncertain	IJ’s adverse credibility finding was adequately supported; remand for corroboration and relief evaluation denied asylum relief but remanded for withholding/CAT
Scope of remand and discretionary relief	Requests full review and reconsideration of all relief claims	Relief discretionary; errors limited; remand appropriate for withholding/CAT	Remand to BIA for withholding and CAT relief; asylum denial retained

Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (defines approaches for removable offenses under categorical/modiﬁed analysis)
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183 (2007) (clarifies Taylor framework for conduct within statute; focus on full range of conduct)
Navarro-Lopez v. Gonzales, 503 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2007 (en banc)) (alerts that intent to defraud can be implicit; modified categorical approach limits)
In re Kinney, 10 I. & N. Dec. 548 (BIA 1964) (precedential BIA decision interpreting 532a(1) and its intent to defraud element)
Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder, 558 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; deference to BIA for CIMT determinations under Chevron)
Mansour v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 667 (9th Cir. 2004) (requires explicit adverse credibility findings; informs corroboration rule)
Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2000) (explicit credibility requirement and corroboration considerations in asylum cases)
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2001) (context for credibility and corroboration in asylum cases)
Canjura-Flores v. INS, 784 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1985) (illustrates evidentiary standards for asylum claims without corroboration)