Ntwari v. Bondi

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
BRUNEL IGOR NTWARI,

Petitioner,

v.

TODD BLANCHE
∗
, United States
Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 25-9571
(Petition for Review)
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*

_________________________________
Before MATHESON, CARSON, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Brunel Ntwari, a native and citizen of Burundi proceeding pro se,
1
seeks
review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an

∗
On August 10, 2026, Todd Blanche became the Attorney General of the
United States. Consequently, his name has been substituted as Respondent.
See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1
Because Ntwari proceeds pro se, we construe his arguments liberally, but we
“cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [his] attorney in constructing
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit

August 14, 2026

Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 25-9571 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2026 Page: 1

2
immigration judge’s (IJ) decision rejecting his claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the regulations implementing the Convention Against
Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
BACKGROUND
Authorities admitted Ntwari to the United States in 2015 as a nonimmigrant
student attending Oklahoma Christian University. In 2016, he applied for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT protection. He sought relief to avoid violence and
other harassment by Burundi’s National Intelligence Service (SNR). According to
Ntwari, the SNR retaliated against him and his family because of his father’s prior
involvement in politics for the party no longer in power. Shortly after he applied for
relief, the college disenrolled him for failing to attend classes. He was also convicted
in Arizona of driving offenses involving alcohol consumption.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) interviewed Ntwari in 2023.
The DHS found him not entirely credible and began removal proceedings which
included serving him with a notice to appear that alleged he was removable under
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(C)(i). He failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, so the IJ
ordered him removed in absentia.
Ntwari later retained counsel, who filed an amended asylum application and
moved to reopen the proceedings. The IJ granted the motion to reopen and held a
hearing in 2024. The IJ then denied Ntwari’s applications for relief. She found

arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer,
425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
Appellate Case: 25-9571 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2026 Page: 2

3
Ntwari’s testimony credible overall but insufficient to meet his burden of proof. She
found
[Ntwari]’s testimony was vague at times and lacked specific
details. For example, [Ntwari] testified that SNR members broke into
his home in March 2014. Initially he provided high level details and
only gave more specific answers when asked direct questions. Still,
some of his testimony remained vague. For instance, when asked how
long the incident lasted, he testified that the SNR harmed him for an
amount of time that “was not short” and “not long.” Similarly, when he
testified about being kidnapped, he initially said he did not know how
long he was held and beaten. When pressed, he testified it was a “long
time” and “hours.” He believes this harm was related to his father, but
he did not know much about his father’s career and political
involvement, and only knew vague details about other times his father
was harmed in Burundi.

R. vol. 1 at 53. She also found implausible certain aspects of Ntwari’s testimony,
including his testimony that he suffered only minor bruising and did not need medical
attention after five men attacked him and hit him with a stick or belt “approximately
a hundred times.” Id. And she found Ntwari’s testimony about the alleged
kidnapping inconsistent with his declaration. She also found that
[w]hen confronted with this inconsistency, [Ntwari] said the account in
his declaration was incorrect and that he got more details from his
parents in 2022 after they came to the United States. However, the
declaration states his father told him the other version of events, so the
fact that he spoke to his parents again in 2022 does not explain why the
story would change so dramatically.

Id. at 54. The IJ found, in sum, that “[Ntwari’s] testimony was not so persuasive,
factually specific, and clear to satisfy his burden of proof without additional
corroboration,” and that his documentary evidence was insufficient to corroborate his
account. Id. at 55; see also id. at 56 (“[W]ithout more information regarding the
Appellate Case: 25-9571 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2026 Page: 3

4
family’s situation, there are too many evidentiary gaps for the [IJ] to grant [Ntwari]
relief.”).
Ntwari appealed to the BIA. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s conclusion that Ntwari
provided insufficient evidence to corroborate his testimony and meet his burden of
proof. The BIA dismissed the appeal.
DISCUSSION
“[W]e review the BIA’s decision as the final agency determination and limit
our review to issues specifically addressed therein.” Diallo v. Gonzales,
447 F.3d 1274, 1279 (10th Cir. 2006). “However, when seeking to understand the
grounds provided by the BIA, we are not precluded from consulting the IJ’s more
complete explanation of those same grounds.” Uanreroro v. Gonzales,
443 F.3d 1197, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). “We consider any
legal questions de novo, and we review the agency’s findings of fact under the
substantial evidence standard. Under that test, our duty is to guarantee that factual
determinations are supported by reasonable, substantial and probative evidence
considering the record as a whole.” Elzour v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1143, 1150
(10th Cir. 2004). “To obtain reversal of factual findings, a petitioner must show the
evidence he presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find as
the BIA did.” Gutierrez-Orozco v. Lynch, 810 F.3d 1243, 1245 (10th Cir. 2016)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Ntwari first argues the BIA erred “in affirming the IJ’s denial of asylum and
withholding of removal by failing to consider new and material corroborating
Appellate Case: 25-9571 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2026 Page: 4

5
evidence that directly addressed the evidentiary gaps” the IJ identified.
Pet’r Opening Br. at 3. The “new and material corroborating evidence” to which he
refers consists of affidavits created after the BIA decision to support a motion for
stay he filed in this court.
2
But our review is limited to “the administrative record on
which the order of removal is based.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). So we cannot
consider the affidavits for the first time in this petition for review. To present other
evidence on a claim for asylum and other relief, an applicant must move to reopen his
proceedings with the agency. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii). As Ntwari has not
done so, this contention lacks merit.
Ntwari also argues that the BIA erred “by treating the absence of corroboration
as dispositive despite acknowledging [his] credibility.” Pet’r Opening Br. at 4. But
the record does not support his contention. Indeed, the limitations in Ntwari’s
evidence went beyond the lack of corroboration—they included implausibilities and
inconsistencies in his account. The IJ credited Ntwari for his candor regarding his
criminal history. But his credibility on one issue does not necessarily make his
testimony sufficient by itself to prove his entitlement to the requested relief. The IJ
reasonably found Ntwari’s “testimony was not so persuasive, factually specific, and
clear to satisfy his burden of proof without additional corroboration.” R. vol. 1 at 55.
And “[i]t’s not always the case that credibility equals factual accuracy, nor does it
guarantee a legal victory.” Garland v. Ming Dai, 593 U.S. 357, 372 (2021).

2
This court denied the motion for stay by separate order on November 21,
2025.
Appellate Case: 25-9571 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2026 Page: 5

6
Ntwari does not demonstrate legal error in the BIA’s decision. And he
falls well short of showing “the evidence he presented was so compelling that
no reasonable factfinder could find as the BIA did,” Gutierrez-Orozco,
810 F.3d at 1245 (internal quotation marks omitted), so we conclude substantial
evidence supports the agency’s findings of fact denying relief.
CONCLUSION
We deny the petition for review. We grant Ntwari’s motion for leave to
proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees.
Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III
Circuit Judge
Appellate Case: 25-9571 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 08/14/2026 Page: 6