Bahta v. Lynch, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15590

Background

Yordanos Araya Bahta, an Eritrean national, entered the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa in Feb 2009, overstayed, and applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT protection claiming Pentecostal-based persecution in Eritrea.
She testified to conversion in 1997, arrests for Pentecostal worship in 2003 (detained in a metal cargo container) and 2008 (two days, then ordered to report monthly), and subsequent relocation first to Saudi Arabia then to the U.S.
Documentary record included her asylum application and affidavit, photocopy of her U.S. visa (not introduced at hearing), country condition reports, family photos with handwritten dates, letters from her mother and a friend, and a Boston pastor’s letter; no witness testimony corroborated key events.
The IJ expressed "serious doubts" about Bahta's credibility based on discrepancies (arrival city and timing of Saudi employment relative to the 2008 arrest) and found her corroboration insufficient; the IJ did not make an explicit adverse credibility finding but required corroboration under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii).
The BIA affirmed, concluding Bahta failed to adequately explain lack of corroboration and thus did not meet her burden to prove past persecution or a well‑founded fear of future persecution; withholding and CAT relief likewise denied (CAT waived on appeal).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IJ/BIA lawfully required corroboration and found record insufficient to establish past persecution	Bahta: testimony and submitted documents sufficed; agency overstated discrepancies and improperly demanded unattainable evidence	Government: applicant bears burden; corroboration is required when testimony not sufficiently credible or specific	Held for government: substantial evidence supports that testimonial evidence plus documents were inadequate to prove past persecution; corroboration reasonably required
Use of visa application information at hearing when document not in record	Bahta: due process violation; DHS relied on outside evidence not admitted	DHS: questioned applicant about apparent inconsistency; IJ considered totality of answers and other record gaps	Held: no reversible due process violation; agency should not rely on non‑record docs, but here IJ’s doubts did not rest primarily on that alleged evidence
Whether Bahta proved well‑founded fear of future persecution absent presumption from past persecution	Bahta: contends fear of future harm demonstrated or presumption should apply	Government: presumption inapplicable because past persecution not established; independent showing required	Held for government: Bahta failed to make the independent subjective and objective showing of fear of future persecution
Withholding of removal and CAT relief	Bahta: alternative relief should be granted if asylum denied	Government: higher standard for withholding (clear probability) and CAT claim waived on appeal	Held: withholding denied (higher burden unmet); CAT claim waived and not considered on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Ordonez-Quino v. Holder, 760 F.3d 80 (1st Cir. 2014) (review both BIA and IJ when BIA adopts IJ and adds its own analysis)
Sunarto Ang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2013) (asylum standard: past persecution or well‑founded fear of future persecution)
Guta-Tolossa v. Holder, 674 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2012) (IJ may require corroboration even absent explicit adverse credibility finding)
Vasili v. Holder, 732 F.3d 83 (1st Cir. 2013) (substantial‑evidence standard and reversal only when record compels contrary result)
Matter of J‑Y‑C cited via precedent: (BIA standard that applicants should provide documentary support for central facts) — (agency precedent applied by courts)
Muñoz‑Monsalve v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (due process in asylum proceedings requires meaningful opportunity to present evidence)
Ang v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2005) (withholding of removal imposes a higher clear‑probability standard)