Oshodi II resolves an intra-circuit split by ignoring it while the dissent presents a brief on the purposelessness of live testimony in fact-finding.

Monday, September 2nd, 2013

A year and a half ago I wrote about a January 26, 2012, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Oshodi v. Holder (Oshodi I). The case presented an intra-circuit split on the issue of when an alien must provide corroborating evidence in an asylum hearing. An earlier Ninth Circuit case, Ren v. Holder, held: Therefore, the IJ must undertake the following sequential analysis. To begin, the IJ must determine whether an applicant’s credible testimony alone meets the applicant’s burden…

A new case finds an over-active judge violated an alien’s right to a fair hearing.

Sunday, January 1st, 2012

Lawyers, like children, complain when things are unfair. Children complain to their parents. Lawyers complain to appellate judges. Parents respond, “Life’s unfair,” which acknowledges the inherent unfairness in life, but does not repair the unfairness. Complaints in the legal world substitute the word “due process” for “fair.” Courts, when dealing with these due process claims, do not acknowledge unfairness and often respond, “What you are complaining about did not violate due process.” Same result. Practitioners before any adjudicative body know…