Roselyne Marikasi v. Loretta Lynch
840 F.3d 281
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Roselyne Marikasi, a Zimbabwean national, entered the U.S. on a visitor visa in 2002, overstayed, and filed for asylum in 2002 (amended 2005) claiming domestic abuse and later political persecution tied to membership in the MDC.
- Her initial 2002 application described domestic abuse and miscarriages but did not assert political persecution or that her husband was a government agent; the 2005 amended application added claims that her husband was a government agent, that she was an MDC organizer, and that ZANU-PF members killed her brother.
- Immigration Judge (IJ) in 2006 and again in 2014 found Marikasi not credible based on multiple inconsistencies (hospitalizations, timing and cause of miscarriages, reporting of abuse, Musasa Project involvement) and insufficient corroboration; IJ denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief.
- The BIA affirmed the 2014 IJ decision, concluding the adverse credibility finding was not clearly erroneous, corroboration was inadequate to rehabilitate testimony, and Marikasi failed to show membership in an immutable "particular social group" (could not show inability to leave or relocate).
- On appeal to the Sixth Circuit, the court reviewed for substantial evidence and affirmed the BIA: the court held at least one heart-of-the-claim inconsistency supported the adverse credibility determination and corroborating evidence was insufficient to meet the burden for asylum or withholding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ/BIA properly made an adverse credibility finding | Marikasi: inconsistencies are minor or explainable (PTSD, memory); testimony should be credited | Gov: inconsistencies (hospitalizations, miscarriage timing, reporting) go to heart of claim and support adverse credibility | Held: Adverse credibility supported by substantial evidence; inconsistencies went to heart of claim |
| Whether corroboration cured credibility defects | Marikasi: medical records, affidavits, psychologist's report corroborate abuse and PTSD | Gov: proffered documents fail to fill key gaps or show persecution-level harm | Held: Corroboration insufficient to rehabilitate or independently meet burden |
| Whether abused-spouse constitutes a particular social group (immutability/social visibility) | Marikasi: domestic-violence victims / abused spouses are a cognizable group under Matter of A-R-C-G- | Gov: Marikasi did not show immutability or inability to leave; facts differ from A-R-C-G- | Held: Although such a group can qualify, Marikasi failed to show she could not leave or relocate; group not established in her case |
| Whether she established well-founded fear of future persecution / withholding of removal | Marikasi: general fear of husband resuming abuse; country conditions show insufficient protection | Gov: No past persecution proven; no individualized showing of real threat; relocation available | Held: No presumption of future persecution; record does not compel reasonable fear; withholding/CAT relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdurakhmanov v. Holder, 735 F.3d 341 (6th Cir. 2013) (jurisdiction and standard of review; REAL ID Act timing note)
- Sylla v. I.N.S., 388 F.3d 924 (6th Cir. 2004) (credibility determinations reviewed for substantial evidence; heart-of-the-claim rule)
- Pilica v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 941 (6th Cir. 2004) (single relevant inconsistency can support adverse credibility)
- Mikhailevitch v. I.N.S., 146 F.3d 384 (6th Cir. 1998) (testimony may suffice absent corroboration; definition of persecution requires physical harm or serious deprivation)
- Liti v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 631 (6th Cir. 2005) (factual findings conclusive unless reasonable adjudicator compelled to contrary conclusion)
- Kante v. Holder, 634 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2011) (requirements for particular social group: immutability, social visibility, particularity)
- Umana-Ramos v. Holder, 724 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2013) (immutability and identity-based characteristics in particular social group analysis)
- Mapouya v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 396 (6th Cir. 2007) (burden and specificity required to show well-founded fear of future persecution)
- Gray v. SLC Coal Co., 176 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 1999) (appellate court should not reweigh evidence)