Vivares-Mazo v. Lynch
665 F. App'x 123
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Juan Esteban Vivares‑Mazo, a Colombian national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief based on alleged political activity and threats/attacks by the Águilas Negras.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief, finding Vivares’s testimony credible but vague and unpersuasive and requiring corroboration for key claims.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision on April 7, 2015; Vivares petitioned this Court for review.
- The agency identified specific missing corroboration: a letter from the candidate he worked for describing threats, campaign materials (e.g., flyers), and a statement from his mother who lived with him in New York.
- Vivares attempted limited corroboration (a Facebook message showing he worked on campaigns) and explained difficulty contacting witnesses, but the agency found his explanations insufficient to show the evidence was unavailable.
- Because all claims (asylum, withholding, CAT) rested on the same factual predicate, the lack of corroboration was dispositive and the petition for review was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether asylum applicant met burden to show past persecution or well‑founded fear of future persecution | Vivares argued his political activity and threats/attack by Águilas Negras established past persecution and future fear | Government argued Vivares’s testimony was vague and uncorroborated; corroboration reasonably available and missing | Court held agency reasonably required corroboration and that Vivares failed to provide it; therefore burden unmet |
| Whether IJ properly required corroboration despite credible testimony | Vivares contended testimony alone should suffice | Government maintained corroboration may be required when testimony is not persuasive or specific | Court held agency permissibly required corroboration because testimony lacked detail and persuasiveness |
| Whether agency identified missing evidence and allowed explanation per Chuilu Liu | Vivares argued he explained unavailability of evidence (lost contact, Facebook limitations) | Government argued IJ identified missing items and gave opportunity to explain; explanations insufficient | Court held agency satisfied Chuilu Liu requirements and reasonably found evidence available |
| Whether lack of corroboration also defeated withholding and CAT relief | Vivares argued same facts supported withholding/CAT | Government argued all claims share factual predicate; failure to prove asylum claim defeats other relief | Court held corroboration/burden findings dispositive for asylum, withholding, and CAT relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Wangchuck v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 448 F.3d 524 (2d Cir. 2006) (considering both IJ and BIA opinions for completeness)
- Chuilu Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2009) (requirements before denying claim for failure to corroborate)
- Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2004) (standard for past persecution and well‑founded fear)
- Yan Juan Chen v. Holder, 658 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2011) (agency may require corroboration despite credible testimony)
- Ci Pan v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 449 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2006) (threats alone may be insufficient absent corroboration)
- Ivanishvili v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 433 F.3d 332 (2d Cir. 2006) (evidence of government inability/unwillingness to protect required for well‑founded fear)
- Jian Xing Huang v. U.S. INS, 421 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2005) (need for objective evidence linking attacker to persecutory group)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (same factual predicate defeats all forms of protection)