NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 19a0330n.06 No. 18-3827 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Jul 02, 2019 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk SUNDAY TUBOLAYEFA AMOS EREPADEI, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW v. ) FROM THE UNITED STATES ) BOARD OF IMMIGRATION WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, ) APPEALS ) Respondent. ) ) BEFORE: SILER, BATCHELDER, and DONALD, Circuit Judges. ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Sunday Tubolayefa Amos Erepadei petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition for review. I. Erepadei is a native and citizen of Nigeria who was admitted to the United States as a non- immigrant B-2 visitor in November 2014. Erepadei overstayed his visa and the Department of Homeland Security commenced removal proceedings in July 2017. He appeared before an immigration judge (“IJ”) and conceded removability but applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT. He argued that as a member of the People’s Democratic Party, a political group in Nigeria, he would be tortured if he were returned to Nigeria. He alleged No. 18-3827, Erepadei v. Barr that a rival group, the All People’s Congress, kidnapped and beat him in 2014 for his association with the People’s Democratic Party. The All People’s Congress is now in power in Nigeria. The IJ denied Erepadei’s applications, finding that he was not a credible witness, that his application for asylum was time-barred, and that he had failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he were removed to Nigeria. The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was based on, among other things, Erepadei’s inconsistent testimony regarding social media usage, his lack of documentary corroboration for his allegations, and his failure to report his alleged kidnapping to the police in Nigeria—despite working as a security agent for the government at the time. Noting that an adverse credibility determination is “fatal to claims for asylum and relief from removal,” Slyusar v. Holder, 740 F.3d 1068, 1072 (6th Cir. 2014), the IJ denied Erepadei’s application on that basis. “[I]n the interest of a thorough decision,” the IJ also held that Erepadei’s asylum application was time-barred. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The BIA dismissed Erepadei’s appeal as to all claims, affirming the IJ’s determination that Erepadei was not credible and that his application for asylum was time-barred. Erepadei seeks review here, arguing that the BIA clearly erred in (1) finding that he was not credible, and (2) holding that his asylum application was time-barred. II. We have jurisdiction to review a final order of removal from the BIA. 8 U.S.C. § 1252. “Credibility determinations are considered findings of fact, and are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard.” Sylla v. I.N.S., 388 F.3d 924, 925 (6th Cir. 2004). “We cannot reverse such ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals