Rivera-Coca v. Lynch, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 23414

Rivera-Coca, a Honduran national and owner of an alleged accounting firm, removed National Party propaganda from his office; after repeated removals he was assaulted and began receiving threats and intimidating car caravans aimed at him and his family.
He relocated his family within Honduras but threats continued; he entered the U.S. without authorization in May 2011, initially told Border Patrol he did not fear return, then later applied for asylum claiming fear of political persecution.
DHS commenced removal proceedings; Rivera-Coca conceded removability and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection (CAT claim later waived on appeal).
The IJ denied relief, finding testimony inconsistent, credibility doubts, failure to provide readily available corroboration, and that alleged mistreatment did not rise to persecution or establish a well-founded fear of future persecution.
The BIA affirmed on narrower grounds: even assuming credibility, Rivera-Coca failed to provide required corroboration and failed to show persecution or an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution.
Rivera-Coca petitioned for review; the First Circuit held the BIA’s lack-of-corroboration rationale was supported by substantial evidence and denied the petition.

Issue	Rivera-Coca's Argument	Lynch's Argument	Held
Whether the agency improperly denied asylum by finding lack of corroboration	Rivera-Coca contended IJ erred in assessing credibility and improperly required corroboration	Government argued petitioner failed to produce reasonably available corroboration and offered no plausible excuse	Court upheld denial: substantial evidence supports requirement and absence of corroboration
Whether alleged mistreatment constituted past persecution	Rivera-Coca argued assault, threats, and harassment amounted to persecution	Government argued harm was not severe or systematic enough to be persecution	Court declined to reach merits of this ground because corroboration failure independently dispositive
Whether petitioner established well-founded fear of future persecution	Rivera-Coca claimed ongoing threats and political animus created objective fear	Government pointed to lack of objective basis and changed Honduran political context reducing risk	Court held petitioner failed to show an objectively reasonable fear of future persecution
Standard of review and deference to agency findings	Rivera-Coca argued errors of law and fact in agency determinations	Government relied on substantial-evidence review and deference to BIA/IJ credibility findings	Court applied substantial-evidence review, deferred to agency credibility/corroboration findings, and denied review

INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 (agency fact findings accepted if supported by substantial evidence)
INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415 (deference to BIA statutory interpretations)
Da Silva v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1 (standard for reviewing asylum denials)
Chhay v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1 (testimony can suffice if specific and credible; corroboration may be required)
Soeung v. Holder, 677 F.3d 484 (corroboration requirement and analysis)
Palma-Mazariegos v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 30 (rebuttable presumption from past persecution)
Nikijuluw v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 115 (well-founded fear requires objective basis)
Ahmed v. Holder, 611 F.3d 90 (BIA deference and waiver principles)
Wan v. Holder, 776 F.3d 52 (review treats IJ and BIA decisions together when BIA adopts IJ’s reasoning)
Morgan v. Holder, 634 F.3d 53 (withholding of removal is a more stringent standard than asylum)
Rodriguez-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 398 F.3d 120 (asylum and withholding relationship)
Amouri v. Holder, 572 F.3d 29 (failure on asylum claim defeats withholding claim)
Kho v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 50 (deference to agency credibility findings)
Bocova v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 257 (definition and proof standards for refugee status)
Ivanov v. Holder, 736 F.3d 5 (caution on later amendments; cited for procedural context)