Opinion ID: 621590
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Corroborating Evidence Requirement

Text: Oshodi asserts that the IJ erred by basing his credibility determination on Oshodi’s failure to produce corroborating evidence. Oshodi contends that the REAL ID Act and due process required the IJ to give Oshodi notice that he needed to provide corroborating evidence. [3] We need not resolve this issue here, as the IJ provided Oshodi adequate notice.4 Oshodi was advised: 3 Oshodi places great weight on the fact that Jibril pre-dated the REAL ID Act. However, in Jibril we specifically addressed the REAL ID Act, noting that we would have been “obliged to deny Jibril’s petition” if the REAL ID Act were in effect. Jibril, 423 F.3d at 1138 n.1. 4 Our recent decision in Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011), purports to hold that the REAL ID Act requires that “an IJ must provide an applicant with notice and an opportunity to either produce the evidence or explain why it is unavailable before ruling that the applicant has failed OSHODI v. HOLDER 747 Put down all the reasons in detail, that you claimed to have been harmed, your fear of harm, the circum- stances of it on the application. If you have corroborative evidence of your claim, I do strongly recommend that you submit it, especially under recent changes of the law and especially since you never previously applied. I’m letting you know that corroborative evidence is recommended. Do you understand it? Even assuming that the REAL ID Act mandates notice that corroborating evidence will be required, we hold that the IJ did not err by basing his credibility determination on Oshodi’s failure to produce corroborating evidence in this case.