SOEUNG v. Holder
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 8378
| 1st Cir. | 2012Background
- Soeung, a Cambodian national, entered on a non-immigrant visa in 2003, overstayed, and applied for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief in 2004.
- IJ denied relief; BIA later dismissed the appeal; petition for review followed in the First Circuit.
- Soeung claimed he leaked sensitive terrorist information to Amy Fox, a US government employee, risking retaliation by the Cambodian government.
- The IJ found inconsistencies in Soeung's testimony and noted lack of corroborating evidence from the US government; no explicit adverse credibility finding was made.
- BIA remanded for explicit credibility findings, then dismissed on the basis that Soeung failed to provide corroboration from the US government about his dealings with Fox.
- The court must assess corroboration requirements under pre-REAL ID Act law, as Soeung filed his application before 2005.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of corroboration requires explicit findings. | Soeung argues no explicit findings on corroboration were made. | BIA concluded inadequate corroboration supported denial. | Remand required; explicit corroboration-findings needed. |
| Whether the BIA properly applied corroboration standards pre-REAL ID Act. | Corroboration not reasonably expected for unique evidence; no clear requirement. | BIA properly required corroboration under pre-REAL ID Act framework. | Pre-REAL ID Act standards control; error to uphold without explicit adequacy findings. |
| Whether factual credibility and corroboration interplay affected relief language. | Credibility could support relief even without corroboration. | Corroboration is critical where inconsistencies exist or corroborating evidence is expected. | Court vacated and remanded to develop explicit corroboration findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re S-M-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 722 (BIA 1997) (corroboration required when reasonably available; explicit demands depend on context)
- Vásquez v. Holder, 635 F.3d 563 (1st Cir. 2011) (reviewing BIA decision; de novo legal, substantial evidence factual standard)
- Mukamusoni v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2004) (corroboration considerations; explicit factual findings required)
- Chukwu v. Att'y Gen., 484 F.3d 185 (3d Cir. 2007) (need explicit findings on reasonable corroboration and explanation adequacy)