Robert Juvener Garcia-Guity v. U.S. Attorney General
20-12758
| 11th Cir. | Aug 6, 2021Background
- Garcia-Guity, a Honduran national and member of the Black Garifuna ethnic group, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief alleging race/ethnicity- and disability-based persecution after a 2014 gang attack left him with a permanently injured leg and vitiligo.
- At his credible fear interview (CFI) his recorded notes indicated the 2014 attack was part of general crime in the town (the gang was "stealing from everybody") and he denied race-based threats or further harassment.
- At the merits hearing he testified the 2014 beating was racially motivated, that attackers continued to threaten and seek him out (including an alleged apartment break-in), and that discrimination and disability prevented him from working.
- The IJ found him not credible based on inconsistencies between the CFI notes and his later testimony, gave limited weight to family letters, and denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. The BIA affirmed the credibility finding and corroboration ruling, and concluded Garcia-Guity did not meaningfully challenge the CAT ruling.
- The Eleventh Circuit held the adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence but found the BIA and IJ failed to give reasoned consideration to non-interested corroborating statements from Garifuna organization officers and a U.S. contractor; the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings, including withholding and CAT issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse credibility finding | Garcia-Guity: IJ/BIA erred; CFI was rushed and notes are not a verbatim transcript so inconsistencies are excusable | Government: CFI notes are reliable; inconsistencies are substantial and undermine credibility | Court: Adverse credibility finding supported by substantial evidence; contradictions between CFI and hearing testimony are dispositive |
| Failure to consider corroborating evidence | Garcia-Guity: IJ/BIA failed to consider independent, non-interested statements corroborating race-based persecution (Garifuna officers, U.S. contractor) | Government: Either evidence was not raised or is unpersuasive; family letters are interested and of limited probative value | Court: BIA/IJ failed to give reasoned consideration to the Garifuna officers and contractor statements; remand required |
| Corroboration from medical records and family letters | Garcia-Guity: Radiology and family letters corroborate injuries and race-based attack | Government: Family letters are interested; radiology shows injury but not motive | Held: Radiology supports injury but not racial motive; family letters properly given limited weight as interested witnesses |
| Withholding of removal and CAT relief | Garcia-Guity: BIA failed to address withholding and erroneously ignored CAT argument raised before the Board | Government: BIA concluded CAT issue was not meaningfully challenged | Court: BIA did not adequately address withholding; its CAT conclusion contradicted briefing; remand required for both claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Ayala v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 605 F.3d 941 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing IJ and BIA findings when BIA adopts IJ reasoning)
- Forgue v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005) (IJ must consider all evidence; burden after adverse credibility finding)
- Jeune v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 810 F.3d 792 (11th Cir. 2016) (BIA must give reasoned consideration and not merely react)
- Ali v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 931 F.3d 1327 (11th Cir. 2019) (reasoned-consideration requirement for BIA decisions)
- Shkambi v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 584 F.3d 1041 (11th Cir. 2009) (distinguishes harmless elaboration from contradictory testimony)
- Mohammed v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 547 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2008) (adverse credibility may suffice absent corroboration)
- Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (exhaustion requirement limits review of issues not raised to the BIA)