Nani Keta v. Merrick Garland, No. 21-3243 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner a citizen and native of Eritrea, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying relief under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge granted Petitioner deferral of removal under the Convention, but the Board reversed that finding on administrative appeal, and Petitioner was ordered removed to Eritrea.
The Eighth Circuit denied the petition. On appeal, Petitioner argues that the agency impermissibly concluded that his testimony was not credible. The court held that the credibility finding here was supported by substantial evidence, explaining that the immigration judge reasonably concluded that Petitioner’s failure to mention significant facts about alleged imprisonment and torture to the asylum officer undermined the credibility of his later claim at the immigration hearing.
Petitioner also contends that the absence of a Kunama interpreter at the hearing in immigration court denied him due process. The IJ here took a number of steps to ensure that Petitioner could participate adequately in the hearing. After the immigration court was unable to secure an interpreter in Petitioner’s preferred language, the court arranged the next best option with a Tigrinya interpreter.
Finally, the court upheld the Board’s conclusion that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the IJ’s finding that Petitioner likely would be tortured. The court explained that the Board adequately explained that anecdotal reports of imprisonment of returnees from Sudan, and reports of torture at the prison, are not sufficient to support a finding that Petitioner, in particular, is likely to be imprisoned and tortured if returned to Eritrea.
Court Description: [Colloton, Author, with Melloy and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The agency's negative credibility finding concerning petitioner's testimony was supported by substantial evidence; absence of a Kunama interpreter did not deny petitioner due process as he was provided a Tigrinya interpreter, and petitioner repeatedly assured the IJ that he and the interpreter understood each other; a document used for impeachment of a petitioner's testimony need not be made available to the petitioner before the hearing, and the government could confront petitioner with his prior inconsistent statement; the BIA did not err in concluding that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support the IJ's finding that petitioner would likely be tortured; anecdotal reports of imprisonment of returnees from Sudan, and reports of torture at the prison where they were held were not sufficient to support a finding that petitioner in particular was likely to be imprisoned and tortured if returned from the U.S. to Eritrea.
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.