Molina-Diaz v. Rosen, 989 F.3d 60

Olga Araceli Molina-Diaz, a Honduran national and MUCA activist, first unlawfully entered the U.S. in 2006 and was removed; she reentered in 2009 and expressed fear of return based on political activity.
She applied for withholding of removal (2011), checked the box for CAT relief, and submitted an affidavit describing threats to MUCA members; a 2012 supplemental affidavit disclosed she was raped by a Honduran soldier during a 2009 political trip and bore a child from that rape.
At the merits hearing the IJ expressed "serious doubts" about Molina's credibility, said those doubts "could have been overcome with appropriate corroborating evidence," and denied relief without explicitly making an adverse credibility finding; the IJ did not address the CAT claim.
The BIA affirmed, treating the IJ’s comments as an adverse credibility finding, concluding Molina failed to provide or explain absence of corroboration, and held she did not adequately raise a CAT claim because her affidavit did not explicitly invoke CAT.
The First Circuit held the IJ did not make an explicit adverse credibility determination and the BIA therefore erred in (1) failing to afford Molina a rebuttable presumption of credibility and (2) rejecting her CAT claim contrary to BIA precedent; the Court vacated the removal order and remanded for further proceedings to allow Molina to produce corroboration or explain its absence and for the BIA/IJ to consider the CAT claim.

Issue	Molina's Argument	Wilkinson's Argument	Held
Whether IJ/BIA properly required additional corroboration without giving Molina an opportunity to explain absence	IJ never made an explicit adverse credibility finding; thus Molina had rebuttable presumption of credibility and should have been allowed to explain why corroboration was unavailable	IJ's "serious doubts" language sufficed as an adverse credibility finding; corroboration requirement was proper	Court: IJ did not make explicit adverse credibility finding; BIA erred by not affording rebuttable presumption and by failing to ensure Molina had chance to explain lack of corroboration; vacated and remanded
Whether Molina adequately asserted a CAT claim	Checking the CAT box and affidavits expressing fear of torture adequately presented a CAT claim	Affidavit did not expressly invoke CAT, so claim was not properly raised	Court: BIA erred; Molina sufficiently raised CAT claim (per BIA precedent) and CAT must be considered on remand

Mariko v. Holder, 632 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (standard of review for agency factual findings and credibility)
Nikijuluw v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 115 (1st Cir. 2005) (deference to agency factual findings)
Soeung v. Holder, 677 F.3d 484 (1st Cir. 2012) (requirements for when IJ may rely on lack of corroboration; need for explicit findings and opportunity to explain)
Guta-Tolossa v. Holder, 674 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2012) (discussing notice/corroboration interplay and leave for BIA to clarify)
Haoud v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 201 (1st Cir. 2003) (agency precedent compliance)
Enwonwu v. Gonzales, 438 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2006) (remand does not signal ruling on merits)
Iao v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 530 (7th Cir. 2005) (criticizing IJs who avoid clear credibility determinations)
Ikama-Obambi v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 720 (7th Cir. 2006) (noting problems when IJs avoid clean credibility rulings)