Eduardo Escobar v. Merrick B. Garland, No. 22-1249 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Petitioner, a 31-year-old man, alleged to be a native and citizen of Honduras present in the United States without being lawfully admitted. Petitioner petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) that found Petitioner removable and denied his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that it is well established that “traditional rules of evidence do not apply in immigration proceedings, except to the extent that due process is implicated. To satisfy due process in a removal proceeding, “evidence must be probative and its admission must be fundamentally fair.” Here, the evidence submitted by DHS meets this standard. While some of the evidence includes undeniable inconsistencies, it is all probative of Petitioner’s alienage. And there is no indication that its admission was fundamentally unfair.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Benton, Circuit Judge] Petition for Review - Immigration. The evidence the government introduced on petitioner's alienage was not inherently unreliable and it was properly admitted; any inconsistencies in the evidence went to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility; the IJ did not err in making common-sense inferences when reviewing the evidence to determine whether DHS met its burden of proving alienage; substantial evidence supported the agency determination that DHS had met its burden of proving petitioner's alienage by clear and convincing evidence; petitioner's CAT claim fails because he cannot show that the Honduran government intends to inflict torture or would otherwise acquiesce in torture committed by third persons if petitioner was removed to Honduras.
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.