Sosa Pedro v. Garland
19-60903
| 5th Cir. | Jul 30, 2021Background
- Petitioner Pablo Sosa Pedro, a Cuban national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection; the IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed; Sosa petitioned the Fifth Circuit.
- The IJ and BIA made an adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Sosa’s credible fear interview (CFI) and his courtroom testimony about: when his problems with the Cuban government began (CFI: 2009; court: ~2017), his travels to Europe and why he did not seek asylum there, the severity of a September 2018 police beating (CFI: “minor” injuries; court: urinated blood and sought ultrasound), and whether he believed he would be harmed because of his race.
- The IJ found the CFI clear and reliable; Sosa did not point to record evidence showing confusion or unreliable CFI notes.
- Sosa’s documentary evidence and witness statements were deemed general or flawed and insufficient to corroborate his claims absent credible testimony.
- The BIA relied on the adverse credibility finding to deny asylum, withholding, and CAT relief. Sosa’s due-process claim that the asylum officer who conducted the CFI should have testified was not raised to the BIA and thus was unexhausted.
- The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction (exhaustion) and denied it in part on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adverse-credibility ruling | Sosa: inconsistencies are explainable; CFI question about race was misconstrued | Gov’t: inconsistencies between CFI and testimony are significant and support disbelief | Court: Reasonable factfinder could find the inconsistencies dispositive; adverse credibility upheld |
| Corroboration for asylum/withholding | Sosa: documentary/witness evidence supports claims despite credibility issues | Gov’t: evidence is general or flawed and cannot substitute for credible testimony | Court: Absent credible testimony, submitted evidence fails to meet burden; relief denied |
| CAT claim given adverse credibility | Sosa: testimony supports real risk of torture | Gov’t: adverse credibility undercuts CAT claim | Court: BIA permissibly denied CAT based on adverse-credibility finding |
| Due process—CFI officer testimony | Sosa: IJ should have required the asylum officer to testify; denial violated due process | Gov’t: issue was not presented to BIA (unexhausted) | Court: Claim unexhausted and jurisdictionally barred; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220 (discussing review of BIA decisions and consideration of underlying IJ decisions)
- Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757 (standards for adverse-credibility review and substantial-evidence scope)
- Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339 (corroboration requirement when claimant is not credible)
- Deep v. Barr, 967 F.3d 498 (BIA sufficiently explaining denial and consideration of documentary evidence)
- Ghotra v. Whitaker, 912 F.3d 284 (BIA reasoning and review standards)
- Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899 (relationship between adverse credibility and CAT adjudication)
- Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132 (exhaustion requirement and jurisdictional bars under 8 U.S.C. § 1252)