Tito Uzodinma v. William P. Barr, 951 F.3d 960

Background

Tito M. Uzodinma, a Nigerian student, faced removal for a visa violation and applied for asylum based on fear of future persecution for his pro‑Biafran and pro‑LGBTQ political opinions.
An immigration judge (IJ) twice granted asylum, crediting Uzodinma’s testimony and his mother’s affidavit and finding he had expressed his opinions on social media.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) adopted the IJ’s credibility findings but reversed, concluding Uzodinma failed to corroborate his claim and had not shown a particularized threat of persecution.
The BIA found no objective evidence Uzodinma had stated his political opinions to others, and noted factors undermining risk (threats not tied to politics, parents in government, and many fellow Igbo/Biafran supporters in Nigeria).
The Eighth Circuit reviews the BIA’s denial of asylum under the substantial‑evidence standard, reviews legal questions de novo, and reviews whether the BIA properly deferred to the IJ only for clear error.
The court held the BIA erred in substituting its own factual finding about whether Uzodinma expressed his views to others but deemed that error harmless because Uzodinma failed to show a particularized threat or prejudice from any procedural error.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA exceeded its authority by denying asylum for lack of corroboration	Uzodinma: BIA improperly required corroboration despite IJ finding testimony credible	DHS/BIA: REAL ID Act and precedent place burden to corroborate; BIA properly required corroboration	BIA did not exceed authority; requiring corroboration is permissible and applied correctly
Whether the BIA improperly substituted its own factual findings for the IJ (clear‑error standard)	Uzodinma: BIA failed to expressly find clear error as required before rejecting the IJ’s finding that he communicated opinions to others	DHS/BIA: BIA addressed some evidence and adopted credibility findings where appropriate	Court: BIA violated the clear‑error review requirement but the error was harmless
Whether Uzodinma showed an objectively reasonable, particularized fear of future persecution	Uzodinma: Social media, threats, and affidavit show a particularized threat for pro‑Biafran and pro‑LGBTQ statements	DHS/BIA: Threats weren’t tied to political opinions; family in government and sizable Igbo/Biafran population undercut particularization	Held: Substantial evidence supports BIA that Uzodinma failed to show a particularized threat; asylum denied
Whether Uzodinma was denied due process by not receiving notice/opportunity to provide corroboration	Uzodinma: IJ/BIA failed to notify him he needed corroboration or allow time to obtain it	DHS/BIA: He was put on notice at master calendar and had opportunity at merits hearing; he said detention prevented obtaining evidence	Held: No due process violation; even if procedural error, Uzodinma cannot show prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Degbe v. Sessions, 899 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 2018) (standard for reviewing BIA as final agency action)
Mansour v. Holder, 739 F.3d 412 (8th Cir. 2014) (deference to BIA statutory interpretation except where unreasonable)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (agency deference framework)
Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (substantial‑evidence standard for asylum denials)
Baltti v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 240 (8th Cir. 2017) (objective/subjective fear element for asylum)
Agha v. Holder, 743 F.3d 609 (8th Cir. 2014) (need for harm to be particularized to applicant)
Cubillos v. Holder, 565 F.3d 1054 (8th Cir. 2009) (requirement of nexus between threats and political opinion)
Waldron v. Holder, 688 F.3d 354 (8th Cir. 2012) (BIA must expressly address clear‑error review and supporting evidence)
Ramirez v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2018) (aliens’ procedural due process interest in removal proceedings)
Camishi v. Holder, 616 F.3d 883 (8th Cir. 2010) (framework for showing prejudice from procedural error)