Wilbur Hernandez-Ortega v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, 707 F. App'x 381

Hernandez-Ortega, a Salvadoran national, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 2011, was removed, then unlawfully reentered and was referred to immigration court after an asylum officer found reasonable fear.
He applied for withholding of removal and CAT relief, alleging gang persecution and torture in El Salvador because of his Christian religion and proselytizing.
At merits hearing, the IJ found Hernandez-Ortega not credible, denied withholding and CAT relief, and the BIA affirmed.
Key corroborative evidence included photos of scars, letters from family and church members about his religion and activities, and documents about murders of alleged gang members he had invited to church.
Hernandez-Ortega challenged the IJ’s credibility finding, the BIA’s handling of certain arguments and corroboration, and claimed a due-process violation for limited time to review a prior sworn statement before cross-examination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adverse credibility determination	IJ was antagonistic, speculated, and improperly commented that scars would be accepted only if petitioner was credible	IJ’s questioning and statements were proper and tied to credibility assessment	Court upheld the adverse credibility finding as supported and not improper
BIA’s failure to address specific IJ burden-shifting argument	BIA ignored petitioner’s claim that IJ shifted burden by asking why gang didn’t kill him in 2010	Government implies BIA did not rely on that IJ observation	Court found no reversible error because BIA did not rely on that observation
Sufficiency of corroborative evidence for withholding/CAT	Photos, letters, and country reports corroborate persecution and risk of torture based on religion	Corroboration was insufficient: letters didn’t link attacks to religion; some letters suspicious; country reports not dispositive	Court held substantial evidence supports BIA’s conclusion that corroboration was insufficient to meet the burden for withholding or CAT relief
Due process: limited time to review prior sworn statement before cross-examination	Denial of adequate time prejudiced petitioner and undermines credibility finding	Even without that questioning, other valid reasons supported adverse credibility and denial of relief; no prejudice shown	Court rejected the due-process claim because petitioner failed to show prejudice or altered outcome

Khozhaynova v. Holder, 641 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 2011) (standard of review when BIA issues independent decision)
Pablo-Sanchez v. Holder, 600 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 2010) (elements for withholding of removal and past persecution presumption)
Haider v. Holder, 595 F.3d 276 (6th Cir. 2010) (CAT standard requiring torture by or with acquiescence of public official)
Zaldana Menijar v. Lynch, 812 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2015) (country-condition evidence insufficient to show likely persecution/official acquiescence)
Bi Qing Zheng v. Lynch, 819 F.3d 287 (6th Cir. 2016) (review of due process claims in removal proceedings and prejudice requirement)