Bayanmunkh Darinchuluun v. Loretta E. Lynch
804 F.3d 1208
7th Cir.2015Background
- Darinchuluun, a Mongolian railroad employee, discovered and reported illegal arms shipments and alleges subsequent intimidation, beatings, a stabbing, and the suspicious death of a colleague (Magdei).
- He produced limited documentary evidence: one cryptic hospital record for August 2006, a police report from a 2010 Illinois stabbing that undercuts his whistleblower theory, and media reports that did not support foul play in Magdei’s death.
- He traveled to Switzerland (2006–07) and Russia (2007–09) but did not seek asylum there; he entered the U.S. in 2010 on a visa for which he misrepresented his purpose.
- At an IJ merits hearing the judge found his testimony generally credible but, under the REAL ID Act, required corroboration because the testimony was not sufficiently persuasive alone.
- The BIA affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding, rejected a claim that the IJ had to give pre-warning about corroboration, and denied a remand/motion to reopen because the supplemental evidence could reasonably have been obtained before the merits hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ properly required corroboration under the REAL ID Act | Darinchuluun: IJ erred; testimony credible so corroboration unnecessary | Gov: REAL ID Act allows requirement of corroboration even for credible testimony | Held: IJ reasonably required corroboration given travel without seeking asylum and visa misrepresentation |
| Whether IJ/BIA had to give specific prior notice of need for corroboration | Darinchuluun: due process required warning and chance to supplement | Gov: REAL ID Act & precedent place burden on applicant; no extra notice required | Held: No additional notice required (Rapheal controlling) |
| Whether BIA abused discretion in denying remand/motion to reopen with new evidence | Darinchuluun: new medical records, interview, affidavits were newly available due to gov’t restrictions | Gov: Evidence was material but could have been discovered/presented earlier; no showing of unavailability | Held: BIA reasonably denied remand; applicant failed to show evidence was unavailable earlier |
| Relief for withholding/CAT claims given asylum denial | Darinchuluun: sought withholding and CAT protection too | Gov: merits not met for asylum, so higher withholding standard unmet; CAT not argued | Held: Withholding denied (higher standard); CAT claim waived for lack of developed argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Bathula v. Holder, 723 F.3d 889 (7th Cir. 2013) (review of IJ and BIA where both provide analysis)
- Khan v. Holder, 766 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2014) (substantial-evidence standard for agency factual findings)
- Liu v. Holder, 692 F.3d 848 (7th Cir. 2012) (REAL ID Act corroboration rule and review)
- Rapheal v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2008) (no additional IJ notice required before demanding corroboration)
- Hassan v. Holder, 571 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2009) (failure to seek asylum in intermediate countries is a relevant factor)
- Krishnapillai v. Holder, 563 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2009) (IJ may demand corroboration regardless of basic credibility)