Case Information
*1 Before W OOD Chief Judge K ANNE T INDER Circuit Judges .
W OOD Chief Judge
. After fleeing native Zimbabwe United States, Lucy applied relief removal. She fears if repatriated, will exercise his rights under tribal custom deems her, brother’s widow, property will attempt rape has done before. *2 ‐ The immigration judge denied application, in part for lack of corroboration of alleged custom and attempted rapes. The Board of Immigration Appeals found her account credible, it dismissed her appeal of insufficient corroboration for her story. not, however, adequately consider wheth
er more information was Sibanda, and appears us was not. We therefore grant petition review remand agency further proceedings.
I Arriving in United States non ‐ immigrant visa, sought in 2009. In her application Sibanda stated that, after husband died, her brother in ‐ law at tempted rape force marry him. in enforcing custom of “bride price” lobola practiced several tribes in Zimbabwe. After applied asylum, government started removal proceedings.
At removal hearing, testified married husband, Aaron 1984. Aaron paid father marry her, prescribed customs of both tribes, Ndebele Shona. His payment money goods, valued at 5,000 Zimba bwean dollars (a considerable sum time), effected transfer father him his family. One term transfer that, event death, become property husband’s family.
That provision triggered Aaron died 2002. His brother, Takaza (whose title appears reflect previous military role) demanded “property.” *3 He insisted he rightfully controlled his brother’s estate (which included two houses and livestock) as well as Sibanda herself, who he asserted required to marry him under bride custom. Opposed to arrangement, Sibanda went to court and received a “Letter Administra ‐ tion” appointing her “Executrix Dative” Aaron’s es ‐ tate. Major Sibanda paid heed to court’s action. In stead, he sold one Aaron’s homes and insisted Sibanda marry him (and thereby become second wife). When she refused, Major Sibanda entered her bedroom one night attempted rape her. He did so on other occa sions as well, when she fought him off, he beat her. Once brought gun threatened put old er son, Brian, jail when son attempted intervene.
Sibanda testified Zimbabwean not protect from Major Sibanda. Major Sibanda her husband’s operated above law, explained, cause their status war veterans who fought lib eration Zimbabwe. When Sibanda sought help from police on two occasions, they told they would intervene family matter. When turned own family assistance, pleas fell deaf ears. Her brothers told should marry Major so family repay price. received temporary assistance cousin,
Zimbabwe’s Ambassador Cuba, con tinued pursue her. cousin offered employment housekeeper Zimbabwean Embassy Cuba. accepted offer worked there until March government removed cousin post allegedly joining political party opposed *4 President Mugabe. During her time Cuba, Sibanda re turned to Zimbabwe approximately once a year, staying for a month each time. During these visits, she tried to take control her husband’s estate and distribute re maining assets. But each time she returned, Major Sibanda find her, foil her attempts control the assets, insist again she must marry him, and reinforce the demand sexual abuse. During one attack, Major Sibanda tore her bra; another time, she refused him, smashed her kitchen window. With no help either her family the police, she appealed a chief the Ndebele tribe. But the chief told her she had marry Major under rules the tribe.
By time her cousin lost Cuban ambassadorship, afraid travel Zimbabwe. Major had sold remaining house her husband’s estate, and so longer a place take shelter. With her brothers, tribal chief insist ing she bound custom, she fled United States sought asylum year later.
Before hearing testimony, specifical ly requested she provide her claim. To help do so, judge delayed hearing almost two years so could find file supporting documents time specified—a month before hearing. She able, however, come up much, what had, presented hearing itself. She relied original handwritten application, two page handwritten statement, birth certificates herself two children, marriage certificate, certificate death husband, letter cousin regarding *5 employment Cuban embassy, letter admin istration that she obtained from a Zimbabwean court. Siban da also submitted letter her younger son, Njabulo. She had received letter after she arrived United States; it, Njabulo stated that if she returns, Major Sibanda intend kill “reporting them police.” She said that she also had another letter Njabu lo informing that Major Sibanda was still intent mar rying her, that she did not her. Finally, submitted an article about husband’s brother, Jabulani who had threatened violence opponents Mugabe regime.
This was not enough satisfy IJ, who denied Sibanda’s application relief. He found that she credibly had testified that bride price had been paid mar riage. He did not, however, resolve question whether testimony duties attacks Major credible. Instead, concluded failure adequately corroborate testimony meant she had not demonstrated past persecution. IJ observed had not presented country report or “any statements any authority or anyone else who aware” demands. also concluded had not demonstrated well founded fear future persecution cause contact since came United States. Finally, concluded asserted social group (women Ndebele tribe subject custom) insufficient appear “custom establish[ed] immutable characteristic.”
6 14 2157
The Board dismissed Sibanda’s appeal. It deemed testimony credible light the IJ’s failure make explicit credibility determination, as required 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Nonetheless the Board rejected request relief the ground that failed comply the IJ’s reasonable request corroborating ev ‐ idence, such “country conditions” reflecting specific obligations, “letters or affidavits” or “a police report” confirming attacks.
II An is within rights ask corroborating evi ‐ dence, there are limits that authority. The statute pro vides “[w]here trier fact determines that the ap plicant should provide evidence corroborates otherwise credible testimony, such evidence must provided unless applicant does have evidence cannot reasonably obtain evidence .” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii) (emphasis added); see Raghunathan v. Holder F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2010); Krishnapillai Holder F.3d (7th 2009). principal question petition before us is whether Board properly considered applied part statute we highlighted. We review IJ’s decision supplemented Board, Mustafa Holder 2013), will reverse finding corroboration if “rea sonable trier fact is compelled conclude such cor roborating unavailable.” U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(D); see Raghunathan 379. assumed, so will we, cred
ible. We thus turn immediately question whether record compels conclusion (more) ev *7 ‐ idence was not reasonably available. The answer, we con clude, yes. Under the circumstances, could not be expected to furnish supporting “letter or affidavit” from own family tribe. Her brothers the local chief both sided so they have reason help elude him through asylum. Zhang Gonzales (7th 2006) (holding that an affidavit an applicant’s wife was unavailable where the appli cant credibly testified that wife was hostile him). Let ters Sibanda’s two sons recounting past attacks were also not available. Based record now be fore us, appears that older son had witnessed attack, he threatened gun wielding uncle when he tried intervene. Compare Hor Gonzales 2005) (concluding that applicant’s co workers would unlikely submit affidavits they knew persecutors’ “murderous potential”).
It also unreasonable Board expect police report would exist. testified police twice told they would not help her. Why police write report documenting difference? did corroborate contacted police: produced letter younger son, Njabulo, stating two brothers were going try kill reporting them police. Board discounted letter son mention attack thought witnessed. But con fused one sons other. letter written younger son, older son, Brian, one who witnessed assault. *8 8 14 2157
In addition the hostility, intimidation, or indifference of family, friends, the police, third reason explains the lack of corroboration: absence of eyewitnesses. A letter attack reasonable expect only when witness independently saw events. See
, e.g.
,
Weiping Chen Holder
somewhat irregularly, record indicates access some outside information. During hearing, he quizzed custom price, comparing answers Wikipedia article front him. But we way knowing what article said how reliable was, appears never shared article Sibanda. Asylum regulations case invite IJs consider reports produced State Depart ment credible sources evaluating country condi tions. C.F.R. § 208.12(a); compare
Hui Lin Huang Holder
(2d 2012) (“State Department reports are … usually best source infor
*9
9 14 2157 mation on country conditions” (internal citations quota ‐
tion marks omitted))
Singh v. Holder
,
Even if supplied reports herself, they have shown only claim plausible; they could corroborated specific experience Sibanda. State De partment report states only “[d]espite legal prohibitions, women remain vulnerable entrenched cus tomary practices, including … forcing widows marry brothers late spouses.” U.S. D EP ’ T OF S TATE C OUNTRY R EPORTS ON H UMAN R IGHTS P RACTICES FOR 2011: Z IMBABWE 40–41 (2011), at http://www.state.gov/documents/ organization/186469.pdf. A report Australian gov ernment, which refers practice “widow inheritance” kugara nhaka offers slightly more. It states *10 practice is still quite common and that women who resist have few protections are often subject violence, espe cially where, here, persecutors are connected Zimbabwe’s governing party. A USTRALIAN G OV ’ T , R EFUGEE R EVIEW T RIBUNAL C OUNTRY A DVICE : Z IMBABWE ZWE37973, 3, (Jan. 14, 2010), at http://www.refworld. org/docid/505aff862.html.
Evidence of country conditions “cannot substitute an individualized determination of withholding claim,” Zheng Gonzales 2005). we explained, could not have presented more than did. That fact means that there can be avoiding careful assess ment credibility. The IJ did half job: he found that bride price paid, but he bypassed question whether account duties imposed attacks suffered credible. The Board assumed credibility on all issues, then unreasonably demanded corroboration. must deter mine whether account duties under local custom is accurate whether testimony credible. If finds credible on these matters, enough show past perse cution.
Three issues deserve brief comment. First, concluded did show part particular social group. Board address this find ing, government has thus requested we refrain deciding it. We agree should decided first instance. INS Ventura U.S. 16–17 (2002). We note, however, record presently *11 11 14 ‐ 2157 before us, proposed social group—married wom en subject custom—appears fall easily within this court’s established definition of particular social group. Cece v. Holder F.3d 662, 669–70 (7th Cir. 2013) (en banc); see also Ngengwe v. Mukasey F.3d 1029, 1031– (8th Cir. 2008) (concluding a widow Cam eroon stated a claim a member of a particular social group where resisted marrying suffered persecution result). Second, neither nor decided whether Zimbabwean govern ment, because either “unable unwilling” stop Ma jor see Halim Holder, (7th 2014), complicit conduct. That issue remains open on remand. Finally, Board, agreeing IJ, decided show well founded fear future per secution ongoing threats Sibanda. Because finding past persecution create rebuttable presumption persecution future, see Stanojkova Holder 2011), relevance (if any) this ruling may change remand.
III We GRANT petition R EMAND further proceed ings consistent opinion.