Linda Chambara v. Loretta Lynch
669 F. App'x 278
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Linda Taurai Chambara, a Zimbabwean national, sought withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- Immigration Judge denied relief after finding numerous inconsistencies and omissions between Chambara’s two asylum applications and her testimony, concluding she was not credible.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding and denial of relief.
- Chambara argued some inconsistencies were immaterial to her reopened claim and that her prior attorney’s preparation of the first application prejudiced her.
- She also alleged a Fifth Amendment due process violation but did not identify specific BIA errors or show prejudice.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed credibility findings for substantial evidence and denied the petition, granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance, and denied additional briefing time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility | Chambara: inconsistencies did not go to the heart of her claim; totality should not support disbelief | BIA: REAL ID Act permits reliance on any inconsistency or omission under totality to find applicant not credible | Court: Upheld adverse credibility; substantial evidence supports it |
| Attorney-prejudice | Chambara: prior attorney prepared the first application, causing prejudice and inaccuracies | BIA: Applicant signed the application, creating a presumption she knew its contents; IJ/BIA considered and rejected prejudice claim | Court: No reversible error; signature presumption and record support rejection |
| CAT claim | Chambara: sought CAT protection based on same factual assertions as withholding claim | BIA: CAT claim depends on same factual showing as withholding | Court: Denied CAT protection because adverse credibility fatal to underlying facts |
| Due process (Fifth Amendment) | Chambara: BIA violated due process and she was substantially prejudiced | BIA/Government: No identified procedural error or demonstrated substantial prejudice; issue not properly briefed | Court: Waived for inadequate briefing; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531 (5th Cir.) (REAL ID Act allows reliance on any inconsistency or omission under the totality of circumstances for credibility determination)
- Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588 (5th Cir.) (standard of review: de novo for law, substantial evidence for facts)
- Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76 (5th Cir.) (credibility findings are factual and reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339 (5th Cir.) (burden for withholding of removal requires credible evidence)
- Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (5th Cir.) (CAT relief dependent on factual showing; adverse credibility can defeat CAT claim)
- Toscano-Gil v. Trominski, 210 F.3d 470 (5th Cir.) (aliens in immigration proceedings have Fifth Amendment due process rights)
- United States v. Williams, 400 F.3d 277 (5th Cir.) (issues not properly briefed are waived)