Leopold Munyakazi v. Loretta Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12726
4th Cir.2016Background
- Leopold Munyakazi, a Rwandan Hutu and former college professor, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after coming to the U.S. in 2004; Rwanda issued international arrest warrants accusing him of genocide and genocide negation.
- Munyakazi testified he remained largely inside his house in Kirwa during the April 1994 killings, aided five Tutsi women in obtaining Hutu ID cards after April 22, and was later arrested and abused in Rwanda from 1994–1999.
- DHS investigators (ICE Special Agent Hyman and colleagues) traveled to Rwanda in 2009, interviewed 22 witnesses (including survivors and convicted genocidaires), and produced reports alleging Munyakazi attended an April 19 soccer-field rally wearing banana leaves and helped incite/lead killings.
- The IJ found Munyakazi not credible based on discrepancies about his whereabouts and activities April 19–22 and vague testimony about the village-wide killings; the IJ credited several survivor interviews and one independently located genocidaire (TM).
- The IJ concluded the persecutor bar applied (Munyakazi participated in persecution), denying asylum and withholding of removal; the IJ and BIA also denied CAT relief, finding he would likely be detained in civilian prisons whose conditions, while harsh, did not rise to torture.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ on asylum/withholding (upholding credibility and persecutor-bar findings) and on CAT (factual findings not clearly erroneous); Munyakazi’s petition for review to the Fourth Circuit was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports agency finding that Munyakazi participated in the 1994 genocide (triggering the persecutor bar) | Munyakazi: no credible evidence shows he assisted or participated; DHS interviews are unreliable and coerced by Rwandan government | Government: DHS investigation produced survivor and independent witness statements placing Munyakazi at the April 19 rally and describing his conduct; investigators minimized Rwandan influence | Held: Substantial evidence supports agency finding that Munyakazi assisted/participated, so persecutor bar applies |
| Whether the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by specific, cogent reasons that go to the heart of the claim | Munyakazi: date discrepancies and vagueness are minor and not central | Government: discrepancies about April 19–22 and vague testimony about village violence are central to whether he incited/participated | Held: Adverse credibility determination upheld; inconsistencies were central and cumulatively persuasive |
| Whether Munyakazi met his burden to prove he is not barred from asylum/withholding by a preponderance of the evidence | Munyakazi: letters and witnesses he produced prove he did not assist; DHS evidence unreliable | Government: record (DHS interviews, survivor statements) outweighs his evidence, and credibility findings further weaken his proof | Held: Munyakazi failed to prove by a preponderance he is not barred; relief denied |
| Whether substantial evidence supports denial of CAT protection (likelihood of torture if returned) | Munyakazi: past mistreatment and risk of politically motivated detention make torture likely; military detention/abusive facilities foreseeable | Government: record shows genocide suspects are held in civilian prisons (poor but not torturous); no clear evidence he would be detained in military facilities | Held: Substantial evidence supports denial of CAT; likely detention in civilian facilities does not meet torture standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez-Avalos v. Lynch, 784 F.3d 944 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing BIA adopting IJ and providing additional reasons)
- Djadjou v. Holder, 662 F.3d 265 (4th Cir. 2011) (substantial-evidence review and credibility bases)
- Marynenka v. Holder, 592 F.3d 594 (4th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of legal issues)
- Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2006) (persecutor bar and burden to prove nonapplicability by preponderance)
- Alvarado v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2006) (evidence threshold to raise inference of participation)
- Lin v. Holder, 736 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 2013) (court may not reweigh evidence on review)
- Dankam v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 113 (4th Cir. 2007) (inconsistencies about central events justify adverse credibility findings)
- Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 2006) (common-sense credibility assessments)
- Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190 (4th Cir. 2014) (deferential CAT review)
- Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 2013) (past mistreatment relevant but not dispositive for CAT)
- Oxygene v. Lynch, 813 F.3d 541 (4th Cir. 2016) (BIA interpretation of CAT intent requirement)