Bokomba v. Sessions
690 F. App'x 24
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Ursule Mundiwa Bokomba, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after alleging she and a coworker were kidnapped and tortured by DRC police for exposing the use of rape as a weapon of war during a 2009 government work trip.
- An Immigration Judge denied relief based on an adverse credibility determination, finding the witnesses evasive and some of their testimony implausible or inconsistent.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the IJ’s decision on July 8, 2015; Bokomba petitioned this Court for review.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the IJ’s decision as supplemented by the BIA and evaluated whether the adverse credibility determination was supported by the totality of the circumstances.
- The court concluded many of the IJ’s examples of evasiveness were unfounded or resulted from misunderstanding of questions, and some implausibility findings relied on speculation or misread the record.
- Because the adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence, the Second Circuit granted the petition and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner waived challenge to adverse credibility finding | Bokomba argued she did not waive and challenged IJ’s credibility reasons | Government argued challenges were waived | Court: No waiver; merits reviewed |
| Whether IJ reasonably found witnesses evasive/unresponsive | Bokomba: alleged evasiveness mischaracterized; misunderstandings explained on record | Government: IJ’s observations of evasiveness supported adverse credibility | Court: Most cited examples were incorrect or rephrased questions resolved misunderstandings; only one reasonable evasiveness finding |
| Whether IJ’s implausibility findings were supported by record | Bokomba: IJ’s implausibility findings not tied to record and involved impermissible speculation | Government: Reports and testimony supported IJ’s skepticism | Court: IJ’s implausibility conclusions misread State Dept. reports and relied on speculation, so not supported |
| Whether a single inconsistency (passport photo) suffices for adverse credibility | Bokomba: single inconsistency insufficient in context of otherwise consistent multi-day testimony | Government: inconsistency undermined credibility | Court: Single inconsistency alone did not supply substantial evidence for adverse credibility; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing agency decisions and when to review IJ as supplemented by the BIA)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (credibility factors and standards for asylum adjudications)
- Cao He Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 428 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005) (prohibits IJ speculation about foreign practices absent record evidence)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (permitted inferences must be grounded in record facts)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006) (remand required where court cannot be confident agency would reach same result absent errors)