NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 17-2313 ________________ LAURETA NDOU, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent ________________ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Immigration Judge: Honorable Mirlande Tadal (No. A208-936-858) ________________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) July 20, 2018 Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: December 28, 2018) _______________ OPINION * * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. ________________ AMBRO, Circuit Judge In Toure v. Attorney General, 443 F.3d 310 (3d Cir. 2006), and Chukwu v. Attorney General, 484 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2007), we considered a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4), addressing what an immigration judge (“IJ”) needs to do to develop record evidence once she determines that an applicant’s story requires corroboration. We held that the “IJ must give the applicant notice of what corroboration will be expected and an opportunity to present an explanation if the applicant cannot produce such corroboration.” Chukwu, 484 F.3d at 192. The Board of Immigration Appeals (the “BIA”) subsequently determined that notice is not required under a provision of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), that was not applicable at the time Toure and Chukwu were decided. Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 516, 523-24, 2015 WL 4386337 *6 (BIA Mar. 19, 2015) (“Applicants have the burden to establish their claim without prompting from the Immigration Judge.”). Our Court, however, recently confirmed that IJs in our Circuit must continue to follow Chukwu’s notice-and-opportunity-to-respond requirements despite the BIA’s contrary decision. Saravia v. Att’y Gen., 905 F.3d 729 (3d Cir. 2018). While normally we would vacate and remand, the context of our case counsels otherwise. I. Facts Laureta Ndou, a native and citizen of Albania, arrived in the United States at JFK International Airport and presented a stolen U.S. passport in the name of Jennifer Rani Brogan. At her airport interview Ndou stated she was “afraid” to return to Albania 2 because “[t]he loneliness is bad. I am lonely every day at home. There is no school. There is nothing else.” If the United States returned her there, she alleged, she would be harmed. Ndou did not mention political opinion as a reason for her fear. The Department of Homeland Security charged her with removability for fraud and failure to present a valid visa or entry document under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). She conceded removability under both charges. Before the Immigration Judge, Ndou, with counsel, sought asylum under 8 U.S.C. § 1158, withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), and relief under Article III of the Convention Against Torture, based on her membership in the Democratic Party of Albania. She claimed that the government of Albania was persecuting her and her family because of their political views and activities. She testified that at ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals