Oshodi v. Holder

The BIA sufficiently complies with a Court mandate when its analysis does not "run counter to 'the spirit' of [the] mandate." An immigration judge's adverse credibility determination will be affirmed where "the IJ considered the totality of the circumstances," and not merely "rank speculation and conjecture and inconsequential factors." Lastly, a petitioner carries the burden of proving due process violations and Convention Against Torture claims.

After a previous remand from the Court and review by an immigration judge and Board of Immigration Appeals, Oshodi again appealed the denial of his "requests for withholding removal and relief." In evaluating Oshodi's claim that "the BIA failed to conduct an inquiry in accordance with [the Court's] prior mandate," the Court reviewed the BIA's inquiries in light of Oshodi's burden of proof and concluded that although "the BIA did not extensively examine the REAL ID Act's legislative history . . . the BIA's analysis did not run counter to 'the spirit' of [the Court's] mandate." The Court declined to rule on a notice requirement for requesting corroborating evidence from the petitioner because "the IJ provided Oshodi adequate notice." Next, Oshodi challenged the IJ's findings regarding his credibility. Reviewing the factors to be used in making such determinations, the Court found that "the IJ's adverse credibility determination was well supported." Oshodi's due process rights were not violated because "the IJ did not prevent Oshodi from testifying," "Oshodi has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed Oshodi's evidence," and the IJ did not wrongfully exclude evidence when Oshodi failed to authenticate it under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Finally, Oshodi failed to meet his burden of proof on his Convention Against Torture claim. PETITION DENIED.