Case: 19-60315 Document: 00515779232 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 12, 2021 No. 19-60315 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Eugene Udoka Udensi, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A215 768 451 Before Davis, Stewart, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Eugene Udoka Udensi, a native of Cameroon and dual citizen of Cameroon and Nigeria, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), based on fear of future persecution if he returned to those countries based on imputed political * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 19-60315 Document: 00515779232 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2021 No. 19-60315 opinion due to his father’s involvement with the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), a political group in Nigeria, and his mother’s involvement with the Ambazonia political group in Cameroon. His applications for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection were denied based on the immigration judge’s (IJ) finding of a lack of corroborative evidence, which was upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The BIA also denied Udensi’s motions to reconsider and to reopen to consider new evidence. Udensi, through counsel, argues that the IJ deprived him of a fair hearing and his right to due process by finding that he was partially credible, by finding that he failed to provide corroborating evidence of his claims, and by denying his application for relief. He contends that corroborating evidence was not reasonably available given the short amount of time he was given to produce such evidence. We review an immigration court’s findings of fact for substantial evidence. Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 2009). We may not reverse an immigration court’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it.” Id. at 537. In order to carry his burden of proof, a petitioner must sometimes present reasonably available corroborative evidence of his claims, and the failure to do so may be dispositive of the petitioner’s application for relief without regard to the credibility of his testimony. Rui Yang v. Holder, 664 F.3d 580, 585-87 (5th Cir. 2011). In reviewing challenges to determinations regarding the availability of corroborating evidence, we consider whether the IJ was “compelled to conclude that such corroborating evidence is unavailable.” Id. at 587 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)). Udensi’s statement that he did not think to ask his cousin Iweka Udensi for an affidavit which could corroborate his testimony did not compel 2 Case: 19-60315 Document: 00515779232 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/12/2021 No. 19-60315 the conclusion that this corroborating evidence was unavailable. See Yang, 664 F.3d at 587. Udensi’s assertion …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals