Vilma Arevalo-Cortez v. Loretta E. Lynch
829 F.3d 1022
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Arevalo-Cortez, a Guatemalan national, entered the U.S. in October 2014 without inspection, was detained, expressed fear of return, and was referred for asylum proceedings after a credible fear finding.
- She conceded removability; Guatemala was designated as the country of removal. She applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection, and testified that her police-officer boyfriend, Chan, repeatedly abused her and would kill her if she returned.
- At the merits hearing Arevalo offered testimony, three written statements (doctor, midwife, neighbor), and medical treatment evidence; the written statements bore dates preceding her U.S. arrival but were produced at her request after she arrived.
- The IJ found Arevalo not credible based on inconsistencies about her passport and prior visa application, lack of corroboration of Chan’s police status, and that the written statements appeared backdated to corroborate her story.
- The BIA affirmed, concluding the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by specific, cogent reasons; without credible testimony, Arevalo failed to meet the burdens for asylum, withholding, or CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Credibility of testimony and documents | Arevalo: IJ misread testimony; written statements were legitimately dated to reflect earlier treatment; passport/visa questions were overbroad | Government: Inconsistencies and backdating suggest fabrication and undermine credibility | Court: IJ/BIA credibility finding supported by specific, cogent reasons; substantial evidence supports denial |
| Asylum eligibility (refugee status) | Arevalo: Past persecution by intimate partner and fear of future harm establish asylum grounds | Government: Without credible testimony, she cannot show persecution on protected ground | Held: Denied — applicant failed to meet asylum burden due to adverse credibility finding |
| Withholding of removal (clear probability standard) | Arevalo: Same evidence supports clear probability of harm if returned | Government: Evidence insufficient, credibility problems persist; higher burden unmet | Held: Denied — higher withholding standard not satisfied |
| CAT protection (more-likely-than-not torture) | Arevalo: Risk of torture by or with acquiescence of officials supports CAT relief | Government: No credible evidence of official involvement or likelihood of torture | Held: Denied — CAT standard not met absent credible evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Fesehaye v. Holder, 607 F.3d 523 (8th Cir. 2010) (asylum eligibility requires demonstration of past persecution or well-founded fear on protected ground)
- Litvinov v. Holder, 605 F.3d 548 (8th Cir. 2010) (substantial-evidence review of factual and credibility findings)
- Fofanah v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2006) (IJ credibility findings entitled to great weight because IJ observes testimony)
- Nadeem v. Holder, 599 F.3d 869 (8th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determinations require specific, cogent reasons)
- Zine v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 535 (8th Cir. 2008) (agency factual findings are conclusive unless no reasonable adjudicator could agree)
- Menendez-Donis v. Ashcroft, 360 F.3d 915 (8th Cir. 2004) (substantial-evidence standard in asylum context)
- Bhosale v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 732 (8th Cir. 2008) (withholding of removal and CAT have higher burdens than asylum)