Notwithstanding the 8th Cir decision in Tamenut, the Court had jurisdiction to consider constitutional arguments regarding the Board's refusal to reopen sua sponte - but grant of Asylum to his (estranged) brother didn't constitute a deprivation of fundamental fairness, where he didn't know about it until proceedings were terminated.
The 8th Cir upheld an adverse credibility determination against a Nigerian asylum applicant - the IJ and BIA required more corroboration, because of omissions on asylum application. The facts suggested the need for more corroboration.
The 8th Cir held that 1252(a)(2)(D) only grants jurisdiction where there is a final order of removal - and TPS denial, appealed to DistCt and transferred to 8th Cir, did not represent a final order. Because removal proceedings are still ongoing, must exhaust administrative remedies. In dicta, CtApp said he needed to exhaust admin remedies by filing sure-loser appeal with AAU.
In a prosecution arising from the Swift Meatpacking raids, the 8th Cir held that an "identity theft" conviction (a) does not require that the "victim" be alive, (b) does not require that a person know that the identity they're using belongs to another person, and (c) was supported by evidence sufficient to permit a jury to find that the "victim" was a real person.
The 8th cir denied this appeal from a denial of a motion to rescind, for a woman with an approved widow's petition. Petitioner said that her attorney told her not to go to the hearing, and filed a Lozada complaint. The IJ / BIA denied rehearing, because the first affidavit she signed said that she had "misunderstood" her attorney regarding the necessity to go to the hearing, whereas the second said that he told her not to go. The CtApp found that inconsistency to be sufficient to deny rescission.
Judge Bye, dissenting, gave 6 reasons (including prior disciplinary action and the approved widow's petition) to believe Petitioner rather than her former attorney.
Eighth Circuit 
