[00:00:00] Speaker 03: This is a time set for argument in Ani vs. Bondi, case 24-2339. [00:00:03] Speaker 03: Good morning, sir. [00:00:06] Speaker 02: Good morning, Your Honor. [00:00:08] Speaker 02: May it please the Court, Emmanuel Nyong'o, spelled E-N-Y-I-N-W-A. [00:00:12] Speaker 02: I'm appearing for a petition of Daniel Ani. [00:00:15] Speaker 02: And if I may ask the Court, please. [00:00:17] Speaker 02: I tend to speak really fast when I get excited. [00:00:19] Speaker 02: If you just tell me to slow down, that helps me a little bit. [00:00:21] Speaker 02: I really set myself so that people can hear me properly. [00:00:27] Speaker 02: Anyway, good morning, Your Honor. [00:00:29] Speaker 02: It's always an honor to be here for this court. [00:00:30] Speaker 02: I've been here a few times, and I find this to be the reason why we go to law school, to get a chance to argue for judges in front of a big court like this. [00:00:37] Speaker 02: So I take this privilege seriously. [00:00:40] Speaker 02: We filed two different 28-year jail letters, and I think I kind of framed the arguments for this morning. [00:00:45] Speaker 02: I just want to add a couple small things to the issues that were already raised, which is that in reviewing the cases that address the Fossum Doctrine, [00:00:53] Speaker 02: They almost always deal with situations where there's no corroborating evidence of the claim. [00:00:58] Speaker 02: And so, in other words, credibility is not really a big issue if there's evidence supporting the claim. [00:01:03] Speaker 02: And in this case, there were several pieces of evidence supporting the asylum claim the court found. [00:01:07] Speaker 02: There was an article that the US government actually took and had authenticated by the Library of Congress. [00:01:12] Speaker 02: Article contains my client's name in it as being one of the people who were arrested and prosecuted. [00:01:18] Speaker 02: The court said on the record that she can't really verify whether or not it's actually him, but she can't just prove it either. [00:01:23] Speaker 03: Yeah, so what do we do with the marriage fraud, right? [00:01:25] Speaker 03: I mean, that's the crux of the issue is that, you know, your client, I guess, represented to USCIS that he was married. [00:01:34] Speaker 03: That turned out to be inaccurate. [00:01:35] Speaker 03: And then there was testimony in front of the IJ on that issue, and the IJ found that the [00:01:41] Speaker 03: that that was so problematic that she should therefore discredit all of his testimony. [00:01:46] Speaker 03: So why do you think that was mistaken? [00:01:48] Speaker 02: Well, so a couple of things. [00:01:51] Speaker 02: When I've done immigration law 25 years, and I'm always shocked by how little people who deal with this should understand immigration law, especially with marriage. [00:01:58] Speaker 02: Paying somebody to marry you is not a violation of immigration law, only if it's sole reason for the marriage. [00:02:04] Speaker 02: In other words, the fact that they say they paid me money to marry me is not. [00:02:08] Speaker 02: In fact, I got married in Nigeria. [00:02:10] Speaker 02: I had to pay the family a substantial amount of money. [00:02:12] Speaker 02: So that by itself does not negate a marriage. [00:02:15] Speaker 02: We have two children. [00:02:15] Speaker 02: I've been married for 18 years. [00:02:17] Speaker 02: And so the lawyer who represented him should have simply said, we can submit other evidence that the marriage is real. [00:02:23] Speaker 02: They just never got a chance to do that because he walked in and was confronted with this affidavit. [00:02:28] Speaker 05: Council, am I understanding you correctly that you are now saying that the marriage, I know your client said this one point, are you really contending that the marriage was real? [00:02:38] Speaker 05: I'm saying that he never got a chance to prove it because I understand that. [00:02:41] Speaker 05: But I'm just saying, is that your position that it was real? [00:02:45] Speaker 05: It is because the wife, the alleged wife said it wasn't real. [00:02:49] Speaker 05: Your client basically confessed that it was not real. [00:02:53] Speaker 05: And what we deal with is the maximum falso and uno falso and omnibus. [00:02:59] Speaker 05: And, you know, that's that's what we struggle with. [00:03:01] Speaker 05: Your client clearly lied about his marriage. [00:03:04] Speaker 05: And the question is, how much does that influence [00:03:07] Speaker 05: the credibility determination by the IJ. [00:03:10] Speaker 02: That is fair, Your Honor. [00:03:12] Speaker 02: I'll leave the issue aside to address the cases we cited. [00:03:16] Speaker 02: So all those cases address situations where the misrepresentation from zero to the claim. [00:03:22] Speaker 02: In this case, it would be just a claim for asylum membership in a group that was persecuted by the government. [00:03:26] Speaker 02: And so there is nothing about any lie about a marriage that affected any material aspect of this case. [00:03:32] Speaker 03: Well, then what about the timeliness of the asylum claim? [00:03:37] Speaker 03: It seemed that your client represented that he didn't seek asylum because of this. [00:03:43] Speaker 03: He believed he was in a bona fide marriage and that then did come into the IJ proceedings and seems like it would be relevant to at least part of the claim. [00:03:53] Speaker 02: It is relevant and, however, in immigration proceedings, it's not whether or not the application is actually proved true. [00:03:59] Speaker 02: It's whether or not, at the time the application was filed, there's reason to believe that it could give you a way to get status. [00:04:05] Speaker 02: In other words, if you reasonably believe that he was actually involved in the proceeding to get his documentation to marriage, there's a waiver. [00:04:13] Speaker 02: Actually, it's called an exceptional circumstance. [00:04:15] Speaker 02: And so this is not based on whether or not the application is actually approved, because almost all cases where you enter the United States, someone files for you the time you're here [00:04:23] Speaker 02: waiting for that person to be to be dedicated to excluded from unlawful presence. [00:04:27] Speaker 02: So in this situation, it wouldn't be a matter whether or not it is approved ultimately, but whether or not at the time he filed it is all times a state. [00:04:36] Speaker 02: So this is how I can actually cite some case law on this, but I didn't expect to address it this morning. [00:04:42] Speaker 05: So is your point that, yeah, your client [00:04:45] Speaker 05: Lied about it at one point, but this is not material. [00:04:49] Speaker 05: We should just put that aside and make our determination about the credibility of your client based upon potential evidence of other than the lie about the marriage. [00:05:02] Speaker 02: Is that right? [00:05:03] Speaker 02: Well, the Folsom Doctrine cited by most of the cases, I submitted the documentation that addressed this issue. [00:05:10] Speaker 02: They always say that it's in the context of real ID acts, which means [00:05:14] Speaker 02: It only comes in when there's no objective evidence of the claim for asylum itself. [00:05:18] Speaker 02: And so then his credibility becomes a central part of the case. [00:05:21] Speaker 02: In this case, there was just simply too much evidence of his membership in the group. [00:05:25] Speaker 02: And then all the court said was, I believe this documentation prove he is who he says he is. [00:05:29] Speaker 02: However, I don't take his testimony about what happened in the past as being true, because I don't find him credible. [00:05:35] Speaker 02: However, the BIA said, even if he didn't find him credible, you still have to look at the other evidence in the case. [00:05:39] Speaker 02: In this case, there was evidence about his father [00:05:42] Speaker 02: He was a pretty strong activist during the war. [00:05:44] Speaker 02: He designed a bomb that was used during the Civil War. [00:05:47] Speaker 02: There was also evidence of himself being arrested. [00:05:50] Speaker 02: There's an article in the newspaper that was authenticated that showed him involved in all these organizations. [00:05:55] Speaker 02: In fact, on remand, the court also said that I believe that he's a member of the group. [00:05:58] Speaker 02: However, the court did something interesting. [00:06:00] Speaker 02: He said, like, he can't prove that he was still persecuted now, which is not an inquiry as to whether or not he's a member of the group, whether or not there's reason to believe he's still persecuted. [00:06:10] Speaker 03: Didn't the IJ kind of do what you're asking to be done? [00:06:13] Speaker 03: It seems that, in fact, the case was remanded again, kind of for that purpose, to say, well, listen, he may not be credible in his account, but we're going to look at the other evidence, and we're going to ask if that evidence supports the claim. [00:06:27] Speaker 03: And the IJ found that it didn't, finding that the news articles, for example, did not show he would be targeted if he were to be returned to Nigeria. [00:06:38] Speaker 03: I guess the question I have is, you know, where is the error in what the I.J. [00:06:43] Speaker 03: did? [00:06:44] Speaker 03: Because the I.J. [00:06:45] Speaker 03: seemingly did consider other evidence in the record and just found that it didn't support the claim in the absence of otherwise credible testimony. [00:06:53] Speaker 02: Well, the I.J. [00:06:54] Speaker 02: did find that the documentation proved who he says he was. [00:06:58] Speaker 02: However, the I.J. [00:07:01] Speaker 02: also found that the documents about themselves without reference to his description does not support what he said happened to him. [00:07:08] Speaker 02: And so the question is whether or not the I.J. [00:07:10] Speaker 02: is correct in that analysis. [00:07:13] Speaker 03: Right. [00:07:14] Speaker 03: I mean, I guess, you know, perhaps the I.J. [00:07:15] Speaker 03: could have found for your client and said, you know, I understand this issue with the marriage fraud, but notwithstanding that, there's a lot of other evidence out there that he was, he is who he says he is, he will be persecuted, and that maybe the evidence would have permitted that. [00:07:30] Speaker 03: But, of course, the review here is substantial evidence. [00:07:32] Speaker 03: So I'm asking, where does the record compel that the opposite conclusion? [00:07:37] Speaker 02: Well, there's two issues. [00:07:39] Speaker 02: One, there was also a motion remand that was supposed to present more evidence of his likely prosecution. [00:07:46] Speaker 02: That motion remand was also denied as well. [00:07:48] Speaker 02: And that motion to remand was to allow him to present evidence of his leader of the group being arrested when he came back to Nigeria in, I believe, 2022. [00:07:58] Speaker 02: And so that motion remand was also denied. [00:08:00] Speaker 02: It was also appealed to the court here. [00:08:02] Speaker 02: So there was evidence of who he says it was. [00:08:04] Speaker 03: What other evidence do you see? [00:08:06] Speaker 03: You have new evidence that you want to put on the motion to remand. [00:08:09] Speaker 03: What difference would it make? [00:08:12] Speaker 02: Well, because the court felt that time had passed between the time he was persecuted and the present time. [00:08:20] Speaker 02: And the court felt like the passage of time made it less likely he would be targeted for persecution. [00:08:24] Speaker 02: And so the evidence showed that the leader of the group went back to the country, and he was arrested and put in prison, been in prison since that time. [00:08:31] Speaker 02: And there's an awful lot of other persecution against members of the group. [00:08:35] Speaker 03: Is that leader of the group really comparable to your client? [00:08:39] Speaker 02: Well, that's the question. [00:08:40] Speaker 02: So the court said, well, even though we believe that members of the group get persecuted, without his particular testimony, he couldn't prove that he himself personally persecuted. [00:08:48] Speaker 02: And so this is why the false ministry becomes central again, because the evidence of him being persecuted was presented quite extensively. [00:08:56] Speaker 02: including the article about himself. [00:08:58] Speaker 02: All this information was before the court in 2013. [00:09:01] Speaker 02: That was appealed to the BIA. [00:09:05] Speaker 02: The BIA did not resolve that issue because BIA remanded on different grounds. [00:09:08] Speaker 02: And so that issue is now being appealed to the court. [00:09:11] Speaker 05: So the issue of... Council, as you well know, on a motion to remand the new evidence, the alleged new evidence has to be material. [00:09:20] Speaker 05: How do you feel that the new evidence in quotes that you're presenting meets that standard? [00:09:26] Speaker 02: Well, so most cases that address motions reopened don't address credibility motions reopened. [00:09:32] Speaker 02: They allow the case remanded for the court to have a hearing to discuss whether or not there's evidence that he himself was personally targeted. [00:09:39] Speaker 02: You cannot prove that on the motion remand because there's credibility to be an issue of motion remand. [00:09:45] Speaker 02: And so the Fawson Doctrine also applies because if you find him not credible the first time, this is all the cases that I cited. [00:09:50] Speaker 02: If I'm not credible the first time, then you deny it on that basis as well. [00:09:54] Speaker 02: And so this is what happened here. [00:09:56] Speaker 05: But what I'm wrestling with here is you want a remand. [00:10:02] Speaker 05: And the evidence that you're presenting characterized, I believe, that it's new. [00:10:07] Speaker 05: It basically just seems to be the same thing over again. [00:10:10] Speaker 05: Maybe a reiteration, maybe a different time framework, but it doesn't seem to be new or material. [00:10:17] Speaker 05: What am I missing? [00:10:18] Speaker 02: Well, so the court found that he was a member of the group, that evidence supports the fact that he's a member of the group. [00:10:23] Speaker 02: He supports that members of the group was persecuted. [00:10:25] Speaker 02: the court felt like he'd been out of the country for a long time. [00:10:28] Speaker 02: And so the passage of time made it less likely that he would be persecuted if he returns back to the country. [00:10:32] Speaker 02: So the new evidence is the fact that the leader of the group came back to the country who was actually abducted. [00:10:37] Speaker 02: And so there were several articles about members of the group being persecuted today. [00:10:40] Speaker 03: Is any of this evidence specific to your client? [00:10:43] Speaker 02: Well, it couldn't be, because my client is here in the United States. [00:10:47] Speaker 02: And so the question when the court made the finding was not that he didn't. [00:10:50] Speaker 02: OK, let me slow it down a little. [00:10:51] Speaker 02: So the court found that there was evidence of the member of the group [00:10:54] Speaker 02: Court felt like too much time had passed, and so the members' group were no longer being targeted. [00:10:58] Speaker 02: So the new evidence is showing that members' group are being targeted in real time today. [00:11:03] Speaker 02: The articles are sent to the BIA, and so that's also part of the appeal. [00:11:10] Speaker 02: And I'd like to reserve a little time with Barlow, if I may? [00:11:12] Speaker 00: Sure. [00:11:13] Speaker 00: Thank you. [00:11:38] Speaker 01: Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court. [00:11:40] Speaker 01: My name is Aaron Henrichs for the Attorney General. [00:11:43] Speaker 03: I have on my day sheet Sarah Byrd, but I guess you all have switched counsel on this. [00:11:48] Speaker 01: I apologize, Your Honor. [00:11:49] Speaker 01: There was a medical emergency. [00:11:50] Speaker 01: I'm stepping in for my colleague. [00:11:52] Speaker 03: Okay, welcome. [00:11:54] Speaker 01: This Court should deny the petition because the record does not compel the conclusion that Mr. Ani established eligibility for asylum. [00:12:02] Speaker 01: In the case Jibril V. Gonzalez, this court stated that in a post-Real ID Act world, the court will overturn adverse credibility findings in, quote, only the most extraordinary circumstances. [00:12:17] Speaker 01: We do not have extraordinary circumstances in this case. [00:12:21] Speaker 01: As to the adverse credibility, the judge here reasonably found that the petitioner was not credible after the petitioner testified falsely [00:12:30] Speaker 01: before that same judge as to a material topic. [00:12:34] Speaker 01: And that ruling is perfectly consistent with the statute, the Real ID statute, and precedent on this question. [00:12:42] Speaker 01: In Harminder Singh v. Holder, that's the 638F3D1264 Singh v. Holder, the agency may reasonably find an asylum applicant not credible, even where his testimony is both internally consistent [00:12:58] Speaker 01: and consistent with asylum application based on factors such as a history of providing false information to immigration officials. [00:13:07] Speaker 01: The evidence before the immigration judge in this case [00:13:10] Speaker 03: This is Singh Beholder 643 F3D. [00:13:12] Speaker 00: Is that the one you're citing? [00:13:15] Speaker 03: We have a lot of cases by this name, so which one are you citing? [00:13:18] Speaker 01: I believe this one is 638 F3D. [00:13:20] Speaker 01: 638, okay. [00:13:21] Speaker 01: Yes, thank you. [00:13:22] Speaker 03: Thank you. [00:13:23] Speaker 01: So the record before the immigration judge was not just a history of providing false information to immigration officials, but continued false testimony in front of that same immigration judge during his asylum claim. [00:13:38] Speaker 03: So what would have happened, you know, the immigration judge was inquiring about this. [00:13:44] Speaker 03: So he had seemingly two ways to go here. [00:13:46] Speaker 03: He could have either admitted that he had testified falsely before or he could maintain that there was no false testimony before and he took the second option here, seemingly. [00:13:59] Speaker 03: Did he have no way out on this? [00:14:01] Speaker 03: I mean, if he had done the first one and said, yes, I did testify falsely, [00:14:05] Speaker 03: It's hard to imagine that would have worked out well for him either. [00:14:09] Speaker 01: The Real ID Act gives immigration judges broad authority to view the totality of the circumstances, including candor. [00:14:18] Speaker 01: And so I think there's an argument to make that if he had come forward and say, listen, I was lying about the marriage fraud, but here I am before you telling the truth, I think that increases his chances based on the totality of the circumstances. [00:14:34] Speaker 01: Of course, it's a [00:14:36] Speaker 01: It's a difficult task given the four years of marriage fraud that preceded his asylum claim. [00:14:44] Speaker 03: One thing we've said, you know, there's been a few developments in the law over the years in this area. [00:14:49] Speaker 03: I mean, we've had this falsest maxim for a long time, and then we have the Real ID Act. [00:14:55] Speaker 03: So I take your position as the falsest maxim kind of continues post Real ID Act. [00:15:00] Speaker 03: Have we ever said that? [00:15:02] Speaker 01: Yes. [00:15:05] Speaker 01: In so many words, I think yes. [00:15:06] Speaker 01: In Shrestha v. Holder, [00:15:10] Speaker 01: We note that the Real ID Act did not, quote, strip us of our ability to rely on the institutional tools, including the requirement that the immigration judge's findings be reasonable, that they be based on specific and cogent reasons related to the petitioner, and that he provide a reasoned analysis. [00:15:32] Speaker 01: So to the extent that the maxim now operates in a post-Real ID world, I think it's part of that totality of circumstances. [00:15:40] Speaker 01: and it would apply in a situation where the judge's analysis is really primarily focused on you said something false here and therefore I'm going to find that your entire credibility is not correct or the entire testimony is not credible but you know I don't know if [00:16:02] Speaker 01: This case even requires the court to get into the intricacies of the maximum, given that, at least reading the IJ's decision, the false testimony in front of the judge is part of his decision, but it's only part. [00:16:20] Speaker 01: He also bases it on just the mere fact of marriage fraud, right? [00:16:26] Speaker 01: Oh, you're testifying falsely, therefore everything is false. [00:16:29] Speaker 01: I'm looking at the false testimony in front of me today, and I'm also looking at not testimony, but just a fact of four years of marriage fraud. [00:16:42] Speaker 03: We also have an alum. [00:16:46] Speaker 03: you know, we kind of made some adjustments to the single factor rule that we used to apply and said, well, we don't apply that anymore. [00:16:55] Speaker 03: How does that decision interact with what we have here? [00:16:59] Speaker 01: Well, I apologize, Ron. [00:17:01] Speaker 01: I'm not familiar with ALOM, but I will just say that we have multiple factors leading to the credibility analysis. [00:17:09] Speaker 01: And given that the false [00:17:13] Speaker 01: the false testimony and the marriage fraud is material and conscious, the decision before us is squarely in line with Ninth Circuit precedent and the statute of the Real ID Act. [00:17:28] Speaker 01: For example, in another Singh v. Holder, 643, facts very similar to this one present that one of the wife in that case [00:17:41] Speaker 01: made false statements about her husband's asylum claim. [00:17:46] Speaker 01: And the court realized it's totally irrelevant. [00:17:50] Speaker 01: It turned out to be irrelevant to her asylum claim. [00:17:53] Speaker 01: But quote, what matters is that the petitioner chose to lie to immigration authorities. [00:17:58] Speaker 01: And that always counts as substantial evidence supporting an adverse credibility finding, unless the lie falls within a narrow exception that doesn't apply here. [00:18:07] Speaker 01: The same goes for the case Nying Li versus Holder, where, again, a applicant for asylum, she lied about part of her asylum claim that was based on a forced abortion, or sorry, she lied about her religious claim, and then the judge there said, well, because you lied about that claim, I'm not going to believe you about your forced abortion claim. [00:18:33] Speaker 01: And I think a factor here that might be helpful is to realize that the separation between the marriage fraud and the asylum claim is not as strong as petitioner would have us believe. [00:18:45] Speaker 01: In fact, the IJ says explicitly during the hearing, the validity of his marriage directly impacts his eligibility for asylum. [00:18:59] Speaker 03: Is that because of the one year [00:19:01] Speaker 01: Bar issue or beyond that I think beyond that partially because of the one-year bar issue, but he also says That the continued misrepresentation Increases the court skepticism about the validity of the asylum claim and when you think about the context and the timeline of what was happening it makes perfect sense I mean the petitioner who [00:19:29] Speaker 01: moves to America in 2005, supposedly having just been persecuted in Nigeria, has two options. [00:19:37] Speaker 01: He can go through the, actually it's not even a choice, he could have applied for both marriage change in status and for an asylum claim, but in his mind he says, well I viewed them as the same thing, so I went for the marriage. [00:19:51] Speaker 01: Well the marriage turned out to be fraudulent, and so if [00:19:56] Speaker 01: The asylum claim was legitimate. [00:19:58] Speaker 01: I think it casts a lot of doubt on the fact that he chose to go the fraudulent route first and spend four years trying to exhaust the immigration appeal, a spousal abuse claim, and a district court case before going to the supposedly legitimate asylum claim. [00:20:19] Speaker 03: That sounds logical. [00:20:20] Speaker 01: Did the IJ say that, though? [00:20:22] Speaker 01: The IJ didn't state it. [00:20:24] Speaker 01: explicitly, but the fact that he mentioned that the marriage fraud goes to the heart of the asylum claim and that the continued misrepresentation makes him question the validity of the asylum claim, I think it is part of the kind of narrative that the IJ is getting at when he's talking about his past and now continued lies based on that marriage. [00:20:50] Speaker 01: And it speaks to the earlier question of, well, why continue lying? [00:20:54] Speaker 01: Well, because if you fess up about the marriage fraud, it kind of puts that timeline into stark relief that if you had a legitimate asylum claim, why on earth are you spending four years committing immigration marriage fraud? [00:21:09] Speaker 05: And doesn't that get down to the totality of the circumstances review? [00:21:13] Speaker 05: I mean, it is true that the IJ found part of the petitioners [00:21:17] Speaker 05: testimony about his past mistreatment was consistent. [00:21:20] Speaker 05: But, and then he testified to some degree in an unbelievable manner, but the review of all of the actions taken, the four years, the continuing claim about marriage, and then only admitting that wasn't true to the degree he did when he had no other choice, it does undercut the circumstances. [00:21:42] Speaker 05: And under the totality of the circumstances review, [00:21:45] Speaker 05: It sounds to me like the IJ was certainly within rights to make the decision that was made. [00:21:50] Speaker 01: I think that's exactly right, Your Honor. [00:21:54] Speaker 01: And the IJ was not just finding things wrong with the petitioner's claim. [00:22:01] Speaker 01: He credited the petitioner for being consistent in his testimony about his treatment in Nigeria. [00:22:09] Speaker 01: Unfortunately, [00:22:10] Speaker 01: As the IJ noted, he was also consistent in his telling of the story of his marriage fraud. [00:22:17] Speaker 01: So in the judge's mind, the usual reliability of credibility were undercut because he was perfectly consistent in both the false story of his immigration and the allegedly true story of his immigration, which forced the IJ to rely solely on the supporting documentary evidence. [00:22:41] Speaker 01: what about the there was against an article that specifically mentioned him so what do you make of that I think I think I make of it just what the IJ made of it which is I've made an adverse credibility finding and so your testimony doesn't hold weight but I'm going to look at the article the article comes out in 2010 and mentions his name in a in a brief part of a sentence saying that the petitioner escaped [00:23:11] Speaker 01: authorities or escaped arrest. [00:23:15] Speaker 01: There is no record evidence about how widely read this newspaper is. [00:23:20] Speaker 01: There's no evidence that the government was aware that this newspaper was published and knows about the article and saw his name. [00:23:28] Speaker 01: And importantly, it only provides evidence that he escaped arrest. [00:23:34] Speaker 01: His asylum claim is mostly based on an actual arrest and detention and alleged torture [00:23:41] Speaker 01: But none of those are mentioned in the article. [00:23:46] Speaker 01: I don't even believe that the article supports the fact that he was a member of the party, just that he had attended an event once in 2004, I believe it was. [00:24:01] Speaker 03: What about the motion to remand? [00:24:03] Speaker 01: So the motion to remand, the question there is, [00:24:11] Speaker 01: Does the petitioner meet the heavy burden of showing that new evidence presented would likely change the result in this case? [00:24:18] Speaker 01: There is an ocean of difference between the petitioner and the individual named in the article. [00:24:24] Speaker 01: First, Kanu is a leader of an entirely different political group, the IPOB, not the Mossad. [00:24:32] Speaker 01: And so first, it's a different group. [00:24:34] Speaker 01: Second, as the record shows, Kanu was a leader of a separatist group, not a member. [00:24:42] Speaker 01: He was a cult hero to hundreds of thousands of followers and part of an active armed struggle against the government. [00:24:48] Speaker 01: I mean, there's reporting that his group was accused of killing at least 60 people in 2021, most of them police officers. [00:24:57] Speaker 01: This is at page 71 of the record. [00:25:00] Speaker 01: So in contrast, the petitioner claimed to be just a member [00:25:05] Speaker 01: even though the record evidence shows that really he just attended a meeting, that's all that the IJ can rely on, of a different separatist group. [00:25:13] Speaker 01: His last interaction with the group was in the 2000s, and he did not have a prominent role, was not accused of any violence, and has not been accused of being part of any violent resistance. [00:25:26] Speaker 01: And so the board acted well within its broad discretion, and the court should deny [00:25:33] Speaker 01: the petition for review as to his motion on remand. [00:25:39] Speaker 04: And counsel, in looking at cases like this, typically, it's always the word of the petitioner. [00:25:47] Speaker 04: I was tortured. [00:25:47] Speaker 04: I was subject to abuse. [00:25:49] Speaker 04: We have no record that we actually have an article. [00:25:52] Speaker 04: And again, I don't know the name of the public. [00:25:54] Speaker 04: I don't know about the publication. [00:25:55] Speaker 04: But someone thought it important enough to single him out as someone who escaped arrest regarding support for this group. [00:26:02] Speaker 04: That's unusual that they have that kind of evidence. [00:26:04] Speaker 04: I mean, you're talking about the leader. [00:26:08] Speaker 04: Sure, Nelson Mandela was attacked all the time. [00:26:11] Speaker 04: Anyone else in the African National Congress name? [00:26:14] Speaker 04: Not usually. [00:26:14] Speaker 04: It was always about Nelson Mandela. [00:26:16] Speaker 04: How would this person ever prove a case except for their own testimony? [00:26:20] Speaker 04: And then I got this newspaper article. [00:26:22] Speaker 04: That seems a little bit unusual to me to have that kind of newspaper, the acknowledgement in the newspaper that he was someone who was subject to at least attempted arrest. [00:26:31] Speaker 01: And I agree that it is unusual in these types of cases. [00:26:36] Speaker 01: And if I can just quickly respond, I see my time is almost out. [00:26:38] Speaker 04: Go ahead, please, if that's OK. [00:26:40] Speaker 01: First, the article does not have, I mean, it is true that we often rely heavily on the [00:26:51] Speaker 01: on the credibility of these witnesses in these types of cases because the events happen in foreign countries that is hard to judge whether it are true or not. [00:27:02] Speaker 01: I just am not seeing the connection between escaping in 2004, escaping arrest, not being arrested, escaping in 2004, zero supporting record evidence from that moment until when he's [00:27:20] Speaker 01: applying for asylum. [00:27:21] Speaker 04: He's out of the country, though. [00:27:23] Speaker 01: Right, but there's no evidence that the government's looking for him. [00:27:25] Speaker 01: There's no evidence in the record that Mossad is even still a relevant player in Nigeria, aside from his incredible testimony. [00:27:34] Speaker 01: And so I acknowledge that it is a unique fact, but it does not, it certainly does not compel a contrary result in this case. [00:27:41] Speaker 01: So I would ask the court to deny the petition and we'd rely on our briefing on the waiver of the documentary claim. [00:27:53] Speaker 01: Thank you. [00:27:54] Speaker 02: Thank you. [00:28:01] Speaker 02: Thank you once again for indulging me. [00:28:03] Speaker 02: Two quick things. [00:28:04] Speaker 02: So on the article, page 162 on the record, it was authenticated by Library of Congress. [00:28:09] Speaker 02: It was sent by the judge to the government [00:28:11] Speaker 02: The court itself says that the government has authenticated the article, so there's no question about the credibility of the article itself. [00:28:17] Speaker 02: It's on page 162. [00:28:18] Speaker 02: I'm sorry, I have the court record. [00:28:20] Speaker 02: So it was authenticated by Congress, so the article is self-subjected. [00:28:24] Speaker 02: He made a comment about the fact he was consistent with the marriage and with the asylum, but that's exactly the reason why I think the court has to look at this differently. [00:28:32] Speaker 02: With the marriage, there was evidence that is not true. [00:28:35] Speaker 02: With the asylum, there's evidence that it is true. [00:28:37] Speaker 02: In fact, the consistency and the [00:28:39] Speaker 02: Asylum is not just his testimony, but all the objective evidence support that. [00:28:42] Speaker 02: The reason why we believe he lied on the marriage is because all the evidence appears to contradict that. [00:28:47] Speaker 02: And so if you look at both situations, actually, this is precisely the reason why all the cases that address this issue make distinction between any lie about something totally different from the asylum and lies about asylum. [00:28:59] Speaker 02: He made a comment on that. [00:29:00] Speaker 03: I mean, I think there's different types of [00:29:04] Speaker 03: And in this context, the type of lie that we're talking about is a lie that was directed to immigration authorities, and here he is seeking immigration relief. [00:29:14] Speaker 03: So there is a connection between these, and I think you can appreciate why a fact finder might question the testimony in light of what he had done in front of the USCIS. [00:29:27] Speaker 02: I very strongly understand that, and I'm not trying to dismiss it or belittle it. [00:29:30] Speaker 02: I was just pointing out the fact that, and I'm looking at the BA decision from 2023, and it makes it very clear that, it says here, the record contains evidence that responded with the support of Masab, and that based on the record, the organization, and that support, such support has faced risk of harm from Nigerian government, the board's decision. [00:29:48] Speaker 02: The board last year found the same thing, that his member of the organization, they face fear. [00:29:53] Speaker 02: And so the fact there's new evidence that members of Masab have renewed sense of fear is exactly what the case was remanded for. [00:30:00] Speaker 02: He makes a comment about IPAWB. [00:30:02] Speaker 02: The BI itself finds that Nan Dukhan is also the head of MSOP. [00:30:06] Speaker 02: It says it right there on page 3 of the decision. [00:30:08] Speaker 02: It talks about him being when he got arrested last year. [00:30:11] Speaker 02: So there's evidence that he's faced future fear based on what happened to the leader. [00:30:14] Speaker 02: There's also evidence that to support the membership in the group. [00:30:17] Speaker 02: Those were not in dispute. [00:30:19] Speaker 02: So the reason why the Fossum Doctrine becomes important in this case is because in a situation like this, when there's all the evidence in the world that he's a member of the police organization, that he was persecuted for that reason, [00:30:28] Speaker 02: The marriage itself should not be the reason why the case should be denied. [00:30:31] Speaker 02: In fact, all the cases that I cited say exactly that. [00:30:34] Speaker 02: So there's no case that supports the finding that lying in the marriage context should be used as a basis to deny asylum. [00:30:41] Speaker 02: That's all time that I have. [00:30:45] Speaker 03: Okay. [00:30:45] Speaker 02: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:30:46] Speaker 03: Thank you very much. [00:30:47] Speaker 03: We thank both counsel for the helpful briefing and arguments, and this case is submitted.