Aguilar-Escoto v. Sessions
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 21353
| 1st Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Irma Aguilar-Escoto, a Honduran national, returned to the U.S. after a prior removal and faced reinstatement of that removal order; she therefore sought withholding of removal (not asylum).
- At a merits hearing the IJ found Aguilar’s live testimony not credible based on perceived inconsistencies, but separately reviewed documentary evidence she submitted (police reports, family court order, medical record, declarations).
- The IJ did not challenge the documentary evidence’s credibility but concluded the documented abuse was not sufficiently severe or persistent to meet withholding standards.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding but did not acknowledge or analyze the IJ’s separate treatment of the documentary evidence; the Board mistakenly referenced asylum and then reasoned that withholding requires a higher burden than asylum.
- The government briefed only the credibility issue; Aguilar also argued the Board failed to consider her documentary evidence independent of her testimony.
- The First Circuit vacated and remanded because the BIA failed to consider potentially dispositive documentary evidence and applied the wrong analytical frame by conflating asylum and withholding standards.
Issues
| Issue | Aguilar's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA adequately considered non-testimonial documentary evidence after an adverse credibility finding | The BIA failed to consider the documentary evidence that could establish past persecution and entitlement to withholding independent of her testimony | Focused on defending the IJ/BIA adverse credibility finding of Aguilar’s testimony | Vacated and remanded: the BIA must consider the documentary evidence separately and may not rely solely on the adverse credibility ruling |
| Whether the BIA applied the correct legal standard for withholding after rejecting testimony | Even if testimony is discredited, withholding is an objective inquiry and documentary evidence may establish the "more likely than not" standard | Argued credibility defeat warranted denial (brief primarily on credibility) | Remand required because the BIA used asylum reasoning and failed to apply the purely objective withholding standard |
| Scope of appellate review—whether to review IJ and BIA together | Aguilar urged review of both decisions, arguing the IJ’s separate documentary analysis mattered | Government defended underlying findings but did not press the documentary-evidence point | Court focused on the BIA decision because the Board did not adopt or address the IJ’s separate documentary analysis |
| Remedy for agency failure to address relevant evidence | Aguilar asked vacatur and remand for proper consideration of documents | Government did not contest remand point | Court vacated BIA’s order and remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Lin v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2008) (BIA must consider all relevant evidence in the record)
- Forgue v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005) (adverse credibility does not relieve BIA of duty to consider other evidence)
- Toska v. U.S. Att'y Gen., [citation="194 F. App'x 767"] (11th Cir. 2006) (failure to consider non-testimonial evidence warrants vacatur)
- Khattak v. Holder, 704 F.3d 197 (1st Cir. 2013) (remand where agency fails to provide legally sufficient reasons)
- INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (distinguishing subjective asylum fear from objective withholding standard)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (withholding lacks subjective component and can succeed despite adverse credibility on testimony)