Emmanuel Njoka v. Merrick Garland ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2018 Doc: 35 Filed: 09/01/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2018
EMMANUEL NGINYU NGWANG NJOKA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: August 24, 2022 Decided: September 1, 2022
Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition granted in part, denied in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Rajan O. Dhungana, FEDERAL PRACTICE GROUP, Washington, D.C.,
for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro,
Assistant Director, Sabatino F. Leo, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation,
Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-2018 Doc: 35 Filed: 09/01/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Nginyu Ngwang Njoka, a native and citizen of Cameroon, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing Njoka’s
appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
For the reasons explained below, we grant in part and deny in part the petition for review,
and we remand to the Board for further proceedings.
We begin with the recognition that the Board erroneously applied the law of the
Fifth Circuit in assessing Njoka’s applications for relief. The Board apparently assumed
that venue for Njoka’s petition for review would be proper in the Fifth Circuit. But we
recently held that the venue statute applicable to petitions for review filed in immigration
proceedings, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2), contemplates only where the IJ was located when the
proceedings were completed. Herrera-Alcala v. Garland, 39 F.4th 233, 243 (4th Cir.
2022). And because the IJ in Njoka’s case was in Falls Church, Virginia, when he
completed the proceedings, venue for the petition for review was and is proper in this
circuit. Id. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the Board should have applied Fourth Circuit
law to Njoka’s claims. See Borovsky v. Holder, 612 F.3d 917, 920 (7th Cir. 2010)
(concluding that Board should not have applied Eighth Circuit law when venue was proper
in Seventh Circuit); Llapa-Sinchi v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 897, 901 (8th Cir. 2008)
(explaining that law of circuit in which venue lies is applicable).
Notwithstanding, we have reviewed the Board’s rejection of Njoka’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims under the law of this circuit and conclude that the Board’s
2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-2018 Doc: 35 Filed: 09/01/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
decision on those claims is legally sound and supported by substantial evidence. See
Herrera-Alcala, 39 F.4th at 242, 244-53 (stating standard of review and denying petition
for review under this circuit’s law despite Board’s application of Fifth Circuit law). In
particular, we emphasize that substantial evidence supports the Board’s affirmance of the
IJ’s adverse credibility finding. See id. at 251 (affirming adverse credibility finding
supported by substantial evidence). The Board also did not err in ruling that Njoka had not
established his entitlement to asylum and withholding of removal “through evidence
independent of his own testimony.” Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 930 (4th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as to Njoka’s asylum and withholding of
removal applications.
On the other hand, we conclude that the Board erred in affirming the IJ’s denial of
CAT protection. The Board’s sole justification for that affirmance was the adverse
credibility finding. The Board suggested that, under Fifth Circuit precedent, an adverse
credibility finding defeats a claim for CAT protection. See Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d
284, 289 (5th Cir. 2019). But under the law of this circuit, an adverse credibility finding
is “not determinative” of a claim for CAT protection. 1 Ibarra Chevez v. Garland, 31 F.4th
279, 288 (4th Cir. 2022); see Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 371 (4th Cir. 2004)
(“Because there is no subjective component for granting relief under the CAT, the adverse
1
After the Board decided Njoka’s appeal, the Fifth Circuit clarified that an adverse
credibility finding does not necessarily defeat a claim for CAT protection. Arulnanthy v.
Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 597-98 (5th Cir. 2021). So the Board’s reasoning in Njoka’s case
also conflicts with Fifth Circuit precedent.
3
USCA4 Appeal: 20-2018 Doc: 35 Filed: 09/01/2022 Pg: 4 of 4
credibility determination on which the IJ relied to deny [the petitioner’s] asylum claim
would not necessarily defeat her CAT claim.”). The Board was thus obliged to also
consider Njoka’s independent evidence in the context of his claim for CAT protection. 2
See Camara, 378 F.3d at 371-72. Because the Board did not fulfill that duty, we will grant
the petition for review in part and remand for the Board to do so.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review as to Njoka’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims and grant the petition for review as to his claim for CAT protection. We
remand to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION GRANTED IN
PART, DENIED IN PART,
AND REMANDED
2
Insofar as the IJ considered Njoka’s independent evidence in assessing his claim
for CAT protection, the Board did not adopt that aspect of the IJ’s decision. See Herrera-
Alcala, 39 F.4th at 244 (“Though we review the opinions of both the [IJ] and Board, we
consider the [IJ’s] decision only to the extent the Board’s decision adopted it or
incorporated it.”).
4