Janeth Luzmila Marin De Toutounji v. U.S. Attorney General
693 F. App'x 862
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Janeth Marin de Toutounji and her husband sought review of the BIA’s final order affirming the IJ’s denial of Marin’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- Marin’s claims rested primarily on her oral testimony; she offered documentary evidence and expert testimony but no independent objective proof of persecution or torture.
- The BIA and IJ made an adverse-credibility finding based on inconsistencies between Marin’s written asylum application and her oral testimony and internal inconsistencies in her testimony.
- The agency found the inconsistencies went to the heart of Marin’s claims and that a credibility determination undermined her ability to meet the burdens for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
- The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the BIA’s decision under the substantial-evidence standard and affirmed, concluding the BIA gave specific, cogent reasons supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BIA/IJ’s adverse-credibility finding was supported by specific, cogent reasons and substantial evidence | Marin argued her testimony should be credited and the inconsistencies were not sufficient to support an adverse-credibility finding | BIA/IJ argued there were material inconsistencies and omissions in Marin’s oral and written statements that justified an adverse-credibility finding | The court held the BIA’s and IJ’s adverse-credibility finding was supported by specific, cogent reasons and substantial evidence; affirmed |
| Whether Marin’s uncorroborated testimony could sustain her burden for asylum/withholding/CAT | Marin argued credible testimony alone can suffice to prove eligibility | Government argued that given the adverse-credibility finding, her uncorroborated testimony could not satisfy the burden; documentary/expert evidence did not independently prove persecution or torture | The court held that because of the adverse-credibility finding, Marin failed to meet the burden for asylum, withholding, and CAT; denial affirmed |
| Whether documentary evidence and expert testimony compelled a finding of persecution/torture despite credibility ruling | Marin argued her documents and expert provided independent proof of persecution/torture | Government argued the evidence did not independently establish eligibility for relief | The court held the documentary and expert evidence did not compel a contrary result; substantial evidence supported denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 440 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (describing substantial-evidence review of credibility findings and when testimony alone may suffice)
- Forgue v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005) (adverse-credibility determination can alone justify denial when applicant relies solely on testimony)
- Xia v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 608 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that internal inconsistencies and omissions can support an adverse-credibility finding)
- Lyashchynska v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 676 F.3d 962 (11th Cir. 2012) (review of BIA as final judgment unless BIA adopts IJ)
- Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 2010) (when BIA explicitly agrees with IJ, review includes both)
- Tan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard for withholding of removal)