Kante v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2316
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Kante, Guinean citizen, entered the U.S. in 2002 without documents; her father owned a Guinea grocery business.
- Guinea was under President Conte (1984–2008) with opposition parties including RPG; her family allegedly supported RPG.
- Kante initially claimed rebels attacked her town in October 2001 without political motive or government affiliation.
- In 2005, Kante filed a second asylum application alleging government security forces targeted her family due to RPG support.
- A 2007 IJ denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on credibility and lack of nexus to a protected ground; the BIA affirmed.
- The Sixth Circuit denied relief on appeal, holding the adverse credibility findings and lack of a protected-ground basis supported denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility and nexus to political activity | Kante argues attacks were tied to her father's RPG activity | Record shows inconsistencies; attack not proven linked to political act | Adverse credibility sustained; no nexus shown sufficient for relief |
| Particular social group—women subjected to rape | Kante asserts rape as government control targets women | Group not sufficiently particular or immutable; circular and broad | Not established as a cognizable particular social group under INA |
| Past persecution based on imputed political opinion | Attack implied political motive due to RPG support | Evidence shows inconsistent accounts; not clearly political retaliation | Past persecution not shown; no well-founded fear of future persecution on this ground |
| Well-founded fear of future persecution and country conditions | Changed Guinea regime post-2008 may increase risk | Court limited to administrative record; remand not available for changed conditions | No remand for changed conditions; failure to show well-founded fear on current record |
| Changed country conditions as basis for remand | New junta increases risk of persecution | Changed conditions may warrant reopening, but only via proper channels and timing | Court declines remand; proper path is motion to reopen under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941 (6th Cir. 2004) (persecution standard and burden shifting for well-founded fear)
- Perkovic v. INS, 33 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 1994) (objective situation for well-founded fear)
- Ndrecaj v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2008) (relevant inconsistencies may bolster credibility determinations)
- Sylla v. INS, 388 F.3d 924 (6th Cir. 2004) (consistency of testimony and credibility evaluation)
- Castellano-Chacon v. INS, 341 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 2003) (particular social group limits and criteria)
- Ucelo-Gomez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 2007) (definitions of particular social groups; non-circular groups)