Robert Baghdasaryan v. Jefferson Sessions
683 F. App'x 568
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Robert Baghdasaryan, an Iranian national and Armenian citizen, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after arriving in the U.S.; his asylum application was filed in 2003, ~2 years after arrival.
- Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief based on an adverse credibility finding and lack of corroboration; Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, adopting five IJ findings.
- Major disputed facts involved Baghdasaryan’s role in the Armenian People’s Party (APP), dates and numbers of rallies, alleged arrests/detentions (including a March 2001 detention), and omissions from his initial affidavit.
- Baghdasaryan argued the one-year asylum filing bar did not apply or was excused, that the adverse credibility findings were unsupported, and that CAT relief must be considered independently of credibility problems affecting asylum.
- Ninth Circuit reviewed for substantial evidence and (1) denied review as to asylum timeliness, (2) held that the adverse credibility findings lacked substantial support, and (3) remanded for the BIA to reassess withholding and CAT relief accepting petitioner’s testimony as credible.
Issues
| Issue | Baghdasaryan's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of asylum application (one-year bar) | Application timely-excused due to changed/extraordinary circumstances | Application filed ~2 years after arrival and no excusing circumstances shown | Denied relief on asylum claim; one-year bar applies |
| Adverse credibility (multiple alleged inconsistencies and omissions) | Discrepancies are minor, plausible explanations exist, and he never given chance to explain omissions | Inconsistencies and omissions undermine credibility and suggest embellishment | BIA/IJ credibility reasons were not supported by substantial evidence; adverse credibility rejected |
| Requirement for corroboration of political activity/membership | Corroboration not required if credibility findings unsupported | Corroboration necessary because testimony lacked documentary proof | Because credibility finding failed, corroboration cannot be required; remand on withholding/CAT |
| CAT relief considered separately from credibility/adverse finding | CAT should be evaluated independently; negative credibility cannot wash over CAT claim | Denial based on underlying adverse credibility | Court held IJ/BIA erred by relying on flawed credibility to deny CAT; remanded for separate CAT analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Aguilera-Cota v. INS, 914 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1990) (one-year asylum bar/filing issues)
- Osorio v. INS, 99 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1996) (requirement to address petitioner’s explanations in a reasoned manner)
- Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (minor discrepancies do not generally support adverse credibility)
- Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2005) (memory for precise dates is a poor credibility test)
- Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2003) (discrepancies that do not go to the heart of the claim are insufficient)
- Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 1998) (petitioner's explanations for inconsistencies must be considered)
- Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2000) (courts should not engage in unsupported speculation)
- Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (opportunity to explain perceived inconsistencies required)
- Alvarez-Santos v. I.N.S., 332 F.3d 1245 (9th Cir. 2003) (omissions from asylum application often insufficient to discredit later testimony)
- Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2000) (providing additional detail at hearing does not prove falsity)
- Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 2004) (no corroboration required where adverse credibility reasons fail)
- Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279 (9th Cir. 2001) (negative credibility cannot "wash over" CAT claim)
- Mansour v. INS, 230 F.3d 902 (7th Cir. 2000) (same principle regarding CAT independence)
- Taha v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) (credibility determinations must be supported by substantial evidence)
- INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 (2002) (remand to the agency for further proceedings)