Yagendra Tilija v. Attorney General United States, 930 F.3d 165

Background

Tilija, a Nepali national and member of the Nepali Congress Party (NCP), was attacked and threatened by Maoists for his political activities and later moved within Nepal for safety before ultimately leaving the country.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Tilija credible and politically targeted but denied asylum and withholding/CAT relief, concluding his harm did not rise to persecution and Nepalese authorities could protect him.
After the IJ decision, Tilija submitted new evidence to the BIA: his wife was assaulted and raped in retaliation for his political activities, she reported the attack to police, and medical records and third‑party letters corroborated her injuries and the police’s failure to act.
The BIA denied Tilija’s motion to remand, concluding the new evidence did not overcome the IJ’s finding that the government was able to protect him; it also questioned the veracity and sufficiency of the wife’s police‑report evidence.
The Third Circuit reviewed the BIA’s denial for abuse of discretion and evaluated whether, accepting the new evidence as true, Tilija established a prima facie asylum claim warranting remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the BIA must accept as true new, non‑inherently‑unbelievable facts in a motion to remand	Tilija: BIA must accept new factual submissions as true unless inherently unbelievable; wife’s police report and medical records are credible and material	Government: New evidence insufficiently detailed to establish prima facie asylum eligibility	Court: BIA erred by not taking the new evidence as true; abuse of discretion
Whether Tilija’s new evidence establishes a prima facie claim for asylum (reasonable likelihood of prevailing)	Tilija: Wife’s attack (motivated by his politics), her contemporaneous police report, and medical corroboration create a realistic chance of proving persecution and lack of state protection	Government: Evidence lacks detail to prove inability to obtain protection; not enough to rebut IJ’s finding	Court: When accepted as true and viewed with the record, the evidence establishes a prima facie asylum claim
Whether the evidence was previously unavailable and material for remand purposes	Tilija: Wife’s assault occurred after the merits hearing and is new and material	Government: Does not dispute novelty/materiality but disputes sufficiency	Court: Evidence is new and material; BIA cannot deny remand on that ground
Whether the BIA could deny remand by deciding discretionary denial now	Tilija: BIA did not make such a discretionary determination; government did not argue denial of discretion would be appropriate	Government: (Did not press that discretion would bar relief)	Court: No such discretionary conclusion was made; remand required since prima facie standard met

Key Cases Cited

Filja v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 241 (3d Cir.) (standard for reviewing BIA denial of motion to remand)
Sevoian v. Ashcroft, 290 F.3d 166 (3d Cir.) (abuse of discretion standard and remand principles)
Huang v. Attorney General, 620 F.3d 372 (3d Cir.) (prima facie standard for motions to reopen/remand)
Zheng v. Attorney General, 549 F.3d 260 (3d Cir.) (BIA must consider evidence and arguments presented)
Abdulai v. Ashcroft, 239 F.3d 542 (3d Cir.) (evidence must be considered; motion standards)
Guo v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 556 (3d Cir.) (court may find prima facie claim as a matter of law)
Shardar v. Attorney General, 503 F.3d 308 (3d Cir.) (family members’ persecution can establish risk to applicant)
Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157 (3d Cir.) (rebuttable presumption from past persecution)
Bhasin v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 977 (9th Cir.) (facts in motion accepted as true unless inherently unbelievable)
Espinosa‑Cortez v. Attorney General, 607 F.3d 101 (3d Cir.) (BIA may not ignore or misconstrue evidence)
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (U.S.) (BIA may deny reopening for discretionary reasons if relief would be unavailable)