Lizeth Romero Zambrano v. Attorney General United States
704 F. App'x 74
3rd Cir.2017Background
- Zambrano and her 4-year-old son D.A.E.R., Colombian nationals, entered the U.S. border in Sept. 2015 seeking protection from FARC extortion and threats after repeated demands at her stores and threats of kidnapping or death.
- Zambrano applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection in Nov. 2015; a separate application for D.A.E.R. was filed Jan. 4, 2016.
- At the IJ hearing, the IJ found numerous inconsistencies and admitted falsehoods in Zambrano’s statements (e.g., whether extortionists were “local criminals” vs. FARC; discrepancies about visa applications; lying about her mother’s whereabouts).
- The IJ denied relief based on an adverse credibility finding; the BIA affirmed, noting D.A.E.R. was “riding on” his mother’s application in a footnote.
- Petitioners appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing the adverse credibility finding lacked substantial evidence, independent evidence supported the CAT claim, and the BIA failed to consider D.A.E.R.’s separate application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence for asylum and withholding | Zambrano: inconsistencies were minor and did not compel disbelief of main persecution claim | Government: inconsistencies and admitted lies (including about mother’s whereabouts) warranted adverse credibility determination | Held: IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence; asylum and withholding denied |
| Whether CAT claim can survive adverse credibility if supported by independent evidence | Zambrano: letter from brother and country reports independently corroborate risk of torture | Government: CAT claim depended on Zambrano’s testimony, so adverse credibility precludes relief | Held: Remand for BIA to consider independent evidence on CAT claim; adverse credibility alone insufficient if independent evidence supports CAT |
| Whether BIA and IJ properly considered D.A.E.R.’s separate asylum application and claims | Petitioners: D.A.E.R. filed a separate application and alleged distinct threats (including particular risks to children) that should be adjudicated | Government: BIA treated child as dependent on mother’s claim (footnote saying "riding on") and did not address separate application | Held: Remand to BIA to clarify and adjudicate D.A.E.R.’s separate application and claims |
| Standard of review for adverse credibility and scope of review | Zambrano: urged reversal under substantial evidence standard | Government: urged deference to IJ/BIA credibility findings under 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(4)(B) | Held: Court applied substantial-evidence review and upheld IJ/BIA credibility finding as supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Balasubramanrim v. I.N.S., 143 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 1998) (standard of review for administrative factual findings)
- Dia v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2003) (an applicant’s credibility can by itself determine asylum eligibility)
- Zheng v. Att’y Gen., 549 F.3d 260 (3d Cir. 2008) (applicant bears burden of proving asylum eligibility with credible testimony)
- Lukwago v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2003) (withholding standard is higher than asylum; failure on asylum implies failure on withholding)
- Tarrawally v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2003) (adverse credibility does not defeat CAT claim if independent evidence corroborates risk)
- Zheng v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 379 (3d Cir. 2005) (adverse credibility precludes relief when claim depends solely on applicant’s testimony)
- I.N.S. v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (review jurisdiction and remand principles for BIA decisions)