Irina Luchina v. U.S. Attorney General, 687 F. App'x 907

Background

Irina Luchina, a Moldovan citizen of Romani ethnicity, applied for withholding of removal after overstaying a U.S. visa; she alleged past and future persecution in Moldova based on Roma status.
At a merits hearing Luchina testified (through an interpreter) to multiple incidents of abuse by classmates, police officers, and a SWAT raid on her family between the 1990s and 2008; she also submitted country‑conditions reports and her birth certificate.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) made an adverse credibility finding (citing internal inconsistencies, counsel‑led nexus testimony, and lack of corroboration), and alternatively found the incidents insufficient to establish past persecution.
The IJ also found country conditions showed discrimination but not a pattern or practice of persecution nor government complicity, and concluded Luchina failed to prove a clear probability of future persecution.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ, adopting his decision; Luchina petitioned for review in the Eleventh Circuit challenging credibility, corroboration demands, and both past and future persecution findings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adverse credibility finding	Luchina: IJ lacked "specific, cogent reasons"; inconsistency was immaterial and interpreter issues explain minor discrepancies	Government: IJ provided valid reasons; BIA adopted IJ; exhaustion required	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — Luchina failed to raise discrete credibility arguments before the BIA, so court cannot review
Corroboration requirement	Luchina: IJ unreasonably demanded corroboration and misweighed evidence she provided (birth certificate, country reports); explained absence of records	Government: IJ permissibly required corroboration given adverse credibility concerns	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — not exhausted before the BIA
Past persecution	Luchina: Testimony + country conditions establish past persecution, triggering presumption of future harm	Government: Testimony not credible and, even if credited, incidents were not severe enough	Denied — because credibility/corroboration findings (unreviewable) dispose of past‑persecution claim, substantial evidence supports denial
Future persecution (clear probability)	Luchina: Country conditions and incidents show systematic, pervasive abuse and government inability/unwillingness to protect Roma	Government: Reports show discrimination but also government efforts and not a pattern/practice of persecution or state complicity; family remained in Moldova without serious harm	Denied — substantial evidence supports IJ that Luchina failed to show individual targeting or a pattern/practice of persecution or state complicity

Key Cases Cited

Seck v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 663 F.3d 1356 (11th Cir. 2011) (review of BIA/when BIA adopts IJ)
Xiu Ying Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 486 (11th Cir. 2013) (substantial‑evidence review of adverse credibility and corroboration principles)
Adefemi v. Ashcroft, 386 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 2004) (standard for affirming agency factual findings)
Amaya–Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (exhaustion requirement for BIA review of credibility challenges)
Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792 (11th Cir. 2016) (what must be presented to BIA to exhaust; need for discrete factual argument)
Shkambi v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 584 F.3d 1041 (11th Cir. 2009) (must give specific, cogent reasons for adverse credibility findings)
Xiu Ying Wu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 712 F.3d 486 (11th Cir. 2013) (unchanged; cited again for corroboration rule)
Djonda v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 514 F.3d 1168 (11th Cir. 2008) (showing individual targeting vs. pattern/practice for future persecution)
Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 577 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009) (reliance on State Department reports in pattern/practice analysis)
Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (family remaining unharmed can undercut future persecution claim)