Haruno Musa Darbo v. U.S. Attorney General, 685 F. App'x 870

Darbo, a Gambian national who entered the U.S. on an F‑1 visa in 1983, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in 2010 after discovering his name on a Gambian “most wanted” list.
U.S. authorities placed Darbo in removal proceedings in January 2011 for failing to maintain his student‑visa status; he conceded removability and pursued relief.
Darbo claimed persecution based on political opinion and family/political‑group membership and submitted newspaper copies, State Department country reports, affidavits, and other articles as corroboration.
At a 2014 hearing the IJ found Darbo not credible, citing inconsistencies and omissions in his testimony and problems with corroborating evidence; the IJ ruled his asylum application untimely and denied withholding and CAT relief.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision in 2016. Darbo petitioned for review in this Court, challenging the timeliness ruling (and asserted due process), the adverse credibility finding and sufficiency of corroboration for withholding, and denial of CAT relief.
The court dismissed the timeliness/asylum claim for lack of jurisdiction and denied the petition as to withholding and CAT because the IJ’s credibility and corroboration findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Issue	Darbo's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Timeliness of asylum / due process	Darbo argues BIA improperly discredited his testimony and thus improperly refused to excuse the one‑year filing bar (due process violation)	BIA/IJ made factual credibility findings showing no changed circumstances; factual challenges to timeliness are not reviewable here	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — court cannot review factual determinations about the one‑year bar or exceptions when framed as credibility/factual disputes
Withholding of removal (credibility & corroboration)	Darbo contends inconsistencies were immaterial and that documentary corroboration (most‑wanted list, affidavits, reports) rehabilitated his claim	IJ found multiple inconsistencies/omissions and questioned reliability/authenticity of corroborating materials; thus petitioner failed to meet "more likely than not" standard	Denied — IJ’s adverse credibility and assessment of corroboration were supported by substantial evidence, so withholding relief not established
CAT protection	Darbo contends he would likely be tortured if returned and that adverse credibility findings tainted the denial	Government relies on IJ/BIA credibility and corroboration findings; CAT requires "more likely than not" torture, with government consent/awareness	Denied — petition fails because CAT claim depends on same credibility/corroboration failures already upheld

Ruiz v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 762 (11th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of jurisdictional questions)
Chacon‑Botero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2005) (no jurisdiction to review factual determinations about asylum one‑year bar)
Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2007) (constitutional claims reviewable but not factual challenges cloaked as constitutional)
Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (substantial‑evidence standard for factual findings)
Chen v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2006) (credibility determinations are factual and reviewed for substantial evidence)
Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2005) (burden for withholding: more likely than not standard)
Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 2006) (establishing past persecution or future threat meets withholding)
Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005) (IJ must consider all evidence even after adverse credibility finding)
Reyes‑Sanchez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 369 F.3d 1239 (11th Cir. 2004) (CAT "more likely than not" torture standard)