Robert Fosso v. Jefferson Sessions III
692 F. App'x 744
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Robert Zephyr Fosso, a Cameroonian national and founder of a gay-rights group, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after arriving in the U.S. without a visa in April 2013.
- Fosso had a border interview and credible-fear interview in which he described threats, harassment of his family, and that his printing business was burned; he did not mention arrests in those early interviews.
- In his later Form I-589 affidavit and hearing testimony, Fosso alleged two arrests/detentions (one involving beatings), but his accounts contained contradictions as to whether he was beaten, the timing of a summons, and whose passport he used to travel.
- Supporting affidavits and documents (family/friend statements, a summons, news articles, State Department country reports) were inconsistent, vague, or dependent on Fosso’s own reports.
- The Immigration Judge found Fosso not credible based on multiple inconsistencies and denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed the adverse credibility finding and denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency’s adverse credibility finding was supported by specific, cogent reasons | Fosso: inconsistencies were minor or attributable to stress/fatigue at border and did not justify disbelief | Govt: agency identified material inconsistencies across border interview, credible-fear interview, affidavit, and hearing testimony | Court: Affirmed—three substantial inconsistencies supported adverse credibility (omission of arrests, summons timing, passport source) |
| Whether independent evidence establishes past persecution despite adverse credibility | Fosso: affidavits, summons, news articles, and State Dept. reports prove past persecution | Govt: proffered evidence is vague, inconsistent, or general country conditions, not proof Fosso himself was persecuted | Court: Affirmed—record lacks sufficient independent objective evidence of past persecution |
| Whether Fosso qualifies for withholding of removal | Fosso: same facts support withholding if asylum standard met | Govt: higher burden for withholding; Fosso failed asylum so cannot meet withholding | Court: Affirmed—because asylum denial stands, withholding fails too |
| Whether Fosso is eligible for CAT protection based on record evidence | Fosso: State Department reports show likely torture risk for gay-rights activists and agency failed to address them specifically | Govt: country reports alone do not show he would more likely than not be tortured; agency considered record | Court: Affirmed—substantial evidence shows Fosso did not prove "more likely than not" risk of torture |
Key Cases Cited
- Ilunga v. Holder, 777 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2015) (adverse credibility requires specific, cogent reasons)
- Qing Hua Lin v. Holder, 736 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 2013) (scope of substantial-evidence review and caution about relying solely on border interviews)
- Singh v. Holder, 699 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2012) (REAL ID Act permits credibility findings without regard to whether inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim)
- Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004) (independent evidence can overcome adverse credibility to establish past persecution)
- Martinez v. Holder, 740 F.3d 902 (4th Cir. 2014) (review scope when BIA adopts and supplements IJ decision)
- Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190 (4th Cir. 2014) (standards for CAT review)
- Zubeda v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 463 (3d Cir. 2003) (country reports alone generally insufficient for CAT relief)