Nancy Marouf v. Loretta Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 58
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioners Nancy, Saed, and daughter Naheda Marouf are stateless Christian Palestinians who lived in Taybeh (West Bank) and later entered the U.S.; removal proceedings followed asylum/withholding/CAT applications.
- They claimed repeated religiously motivated persecution in the West Bank, including a 2006 mob attack that broke Saed’s nose and required surgery.
- An IJ found their testimony not credible based on several alleged inconsistencies (number of assailants, date of attack, a family letter stating an “accident,” and varying descriptions of a cousin’s injury) and denied asylum, withholding, and CAT protection.
- The BIA affirmed the adverse credibility finding, adopting the IJ’s cited inconsistencies.
- The Sixth Circuit granted review, held the adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence, reversed, and remanded to the BIA for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ/BIA’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence | Maroufs: alleged inconsistencies were minor, likely translation/memory errors, and corroborating evidence (medical records, country reports) shows consistent account | IJ/BIA: discrepancies (dates, numbers, letter wording, cousin’s injury) under REAL ID Act justified adverse credibility finding | Court: Reversed — inconsistencies did not constitute substantial evidence; translation issues and corroboration undermine the adverse credibility finding |
| Whether translation/language issues were properly considered | Maroufs: language barriers and translator errors likely caused apparent inconsistencies; IJ failed to probe or allow explanation | Government: relied on translated documents and testimony inconsistencies to support disbelief | Held: IJ/BIA failed to be sufficiently sensitive to translation/language issues; should have solicited explanations; errors cannot sustain adverse finding |
| Whether record establishes eligibility for asylum/withholding under INA | Maroufs: credible testimony of past persecution, medical records (septoplasty), priest attestations, and State Dept. reports show risk on account of religion | Government: adverse credibility finding defeated statutory eligibility showing | Held: Given reversal of credibility ruling, record establishes past persecution and a well‑founded fear; eligibility for asylum/withholding is supported on the face of the record (remand required) |
| Whether discretionary asylum should be granted | Maroufs: discretionary grant appropriate; denials rare except for egregious misconduct; family ties to U.S. (citizen children) weigh in favor | Government: discretion to deny asylum even if eligible | Held: Majority opined that, absent adverse factors, denial would be an abuse of discretion and suggested asylum should be granted; concurring judges limited scope, urging remand without mandating grant |
Key Cases Cited
- Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511 (Sup. Ct.) (Refugee Act implements international treaty obligations)
- INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (Sup. Ct.) (standards for withholding of removal under INA)
- Shkulakvr-Purballori v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 499 (6th Cir.) (burden and standard for withholding/CAT)
- El-Moussa v. Holder, 569 F.3d 250 (6th Cir.) (deference to adverse credibility if supported by substantial evidence)
- Liti v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 631 (6th Cir.) (speculation/conjecture cannot support adverse credibility)
- Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199 (4th Cir.) (must consider explanations for inconsistencies; avoid cherry-picking)
- Kaba v. Mukasey, 546 F.3d 741 (6th Cir.) (definition of persecution and legal standards for asylum eligibility)