Tapsoba v. Sessions
685 F. App'x 81
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Ousmane Tapsoba, a citizen of Burkina Faso, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after alleging past political persecution as a merchant-association spokesman.
- IJ denied relief on May 1, 2013; BIA affirmed on January 30, 2015; Tapsoba petitioned for review in the Second Circuit.
- Key factual claims: two arrests and detentions for political activity, injuries from detention, and ongoing harm; limited documentary corroboration (letters from family that do not mention arrests/injuries).
- Tapsoba filed his asylum application late and claimed he reasonably relied on a third party to file it for him as an "extraordinary circumstance."
- The agency found his reliance unreasonable, barred review of the asylum timeliness determination, and denied withholding/CAT relief for failure to provide corroborating evidence after being asked to do so.
Issues
| Issue | Tapsoba's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review one-year asylum bar/extraordinary circumstances | Reliance on a third party to file his asylum application constituted "extraordinary circumstances" making late filing reasonable | Agency properly found such reliance unreasonable; statutory/regulatory scope of "extraordinary circumstances" is narrow | Court lacks jurisdiction to review the factual timeliness finding and finds no legal error in agency’s determination that the reliance was not reasonable |
| Corroboration for withholding of removal | Testimony of past arrests/injuries is credible and should suffice; documentary gaps not dispositive | IJ reasonably required corroboration and petitioner failed to provide available documents or explain absence | Court upheld denial: petitioner failed to corroborate central claims and did not show evidence was unavailable |
| CAT claim sufficiency | Same factual record supports CAT relief | Same corroboration deficiencies defeat CAT claim | Denied because corroboration determination dispositively forecloses CAT relief |
| Standard of review over corroboration availability | (implicit) Agency must identify missing documents and allow explanation; petitioner contends burden not met | Agency did identify documents, questioned petitioner, and found no adequate explanation | Court defers to agency factfinding; record does not compel finding that corroborating evidence was unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir.) (reviewing BIA and IJ decisions together)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (standards of review for credibility and corroboration)
- Weinong Lin v. Holder, 763 F.3d 244 (2d Cir.) (jurisdictional limits over timeliness factual findings)
- Liu v. I.N.S., 508 F.3d 716 (2d Cir.) (jurisdiction to review withholding and CAT claims)
- Diallo v. INS, 232 F.3d 279 (2d Cir.) (corroboration may be required when reasonably expected)
- Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193 (2d Cir.) (procedural requirements when denying relief for lack of corroboration)
- INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (U.S.) (agency alternative rulings doctrine)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (corroboration and denial of relief)