Uzodinma v. Barr, No. 18-3437 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit denied a petition for review challenging the BIA's decision reversing the IJ's ruling that petitioner merited asylum because he had a well-founded fear of future persecution in Nigeria for his political opinions. The court held that, despite the harmless error of substituting its own findings about communicating his political opinions, substantial evidence supported the BIA's determination that petitioner was ineligible for asylum, because he failed to show that he faced a particularized threat of persecution. Furthermore, the BIA did not exceed its authority by requiring corroborating evidence for petitioner to meet his burden of proof.
The court also held that petitioner could not show that the outcome of proceedings would have differed with notice and opportunity, and thus he failed to demonstrate prejudice from any procedural error.
Court Description: [Benton, Author, with Colloton and Wollman, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. An applicant for asylum has the burden to corroborate an asylum claim, even if the uncorroborated testimony is deemed credible, and the BIA did not exceed its authority by requiring corroborating evidence for petitioner to meet his burden of proof; while the BIA improperly substituted its own finding that there was no objective evidence that petitioner had stated his political opinion to others, the error was harmless because petitioner did not show he faced a particularized threat of persecution; the BIA's ruling that petitioner is ineligible for asylum is supported by substantial evidence; petitioner was on notice that he needed to corroborate his claim of a particularized threat of persecution, and there was no fundamental procedural error in the case; even if there was, in order to obtain a reversal petitioner would have to show prejudice, and he cannot do so.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.