Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03487/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03487-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ray Fuller
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

In the 

United States Court of Appeals 

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 15‐3487

RAY FULLER,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States,

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

No. A077‐811‐635

____________________

SUBMITTED MAY 23, 2016* — DECIDED AUGUST 17, 2016

____________________

Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER and ROVNER, Circuit

Judges.

WOOD, Chief Judge. Ray Fuller, a 51‐year‐old Jamaican cit‐

izen, petitions for judicial review of the denial of his applica‐

tions for withholding of removal under the Immigration and

                                                  *  After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. The petition for review is thus submitted

on the briefs and the record. See FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(C).  

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
2 No. 15‐3487

Nationality Act (“INA”) and withholding and deferral of re‐

moval under the United Nations Convention Against Torture

(“CAT”). Fuller asserted a fear of persecution and torture in

Jamaica based upon his claimed bisexuality, but an immigra‐

tion judge deemed his testimony not worthy of belief and de‐

nied relief. We deny the petition.

Fuller came to the United States in 1999 with a fiancé visa

sponsored by Carol Wood, a U.S. citizen. They soon married

and in 2001 had a daughter. Fuller promptly received condi‐

tional permanent resident status, see 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a), but

then he and Wood failed to attend a required interview with

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and in 2004 his

status was terminated. They divorced the next year.

In the meantime, also in 2004, Fuller had pleaded guilty to

attempted criminal sexual assault, 720 ILCS 5/8‐4(a), 5/12‐

13(a)(1) (since renumbered as 720 ILCS 5/11‐1.20(a)(1)

(West 2016)), and been sentenced to 30 months’ probation. He

later violated the conditions of his probation and in 2012 was

resentenced to four years’ imprisonment.

Upon Fuller’s release from state custody in 2014, the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security detained him and charged

him as removable on three grounds: (1) for being convicted of

an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), defined as

an attempt to commit a crime of violence, id. § 1101(a)(43)(F),

(U), (2) for being convicted of a crime involving moral turpi‐

tude, id. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i), and (3) for losing his conditional

permanentresident status, id. § 1227(a)(1)(D)(i). The immigra‐

tion judge (“IJ”) sustained each ground of removability. The

Board of Immigration Appeals agreed that Fuller was remov‐

able under § 1227(a)(1)(D)(i) for losing his conditional perma‐

nent resident status, but it did not address the other grounds.

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15‐3487 3

Fuller does not challenge his removability under

§ 1227(a)(1)(D)(i).

Along with his applications for relief from removal, Fuller

submitted evidence—including the 2012 and 2013 U.S. State

Department Human Rights Reports—documenting the se‐

vere abuse and discrimination suffered by lesbian, gay, bisex‐

ual, and transgender (“LGBT”) persons in Jamaica. As chron‐

icled in the reports, Jamaica criminalizes physical intimacy

between persons of the same sex, and its police officers have

been known arbitrarily to arrest, detain, and torture LGBT

persons. See also Bromfield v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071, 1076–77

(9th Cir. 2008) (finding a pattern or practice of persecution

against gay men in Jamaica). We have no reason to doubt that

general account of conditions in the country.

Fuller asserted that he is bisexual, and he testified about

his experiences as a bisexual man in Jamaica and the specific

incidents of harm and harassment he endured. He grew up in

Kingston and said that as a preteen he began exploring sexual

relationships with both men and women. Since then, he has

identified as bisexual and continued to have relationships

with both sexes. One of his relationships with a woman pro‐

duced two children, a son born in 1986 and a daughter born

in 1987, both of whom now live in the United States and are

U.S. citizens. While attending college in Kingston, Fuller was

attacked and at times stoned by other students. A few years

later, when walking home from work, he was taunted for be‐

ing gay by a group of men who took a knife to his face and

sliced him. Another time he was robbed at gunpoint by a man

who called him a “batty man,” a Jamaican slur for a gay man.

On another occasion, while partying with his boyfriend in the

gay‐friendly resort town of Ocho Rios, Fuller was shot in the

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
4 No. 15‐3487

back and buttock by someone in an “anti‐gay mob” that had

barged into the party. His sisters, after hearing about the

shooting, expressed their disapproval of his sexual orienta‐

tion and “disowned” him, and one sister kicked him out of

her house. In 1997 Fuller became romantically involved with

Wood, a former high‐school friend who was visiting Jamaica.

They married in 1999, lived together in the United States, and

two years later returned to Ocho Rios for a belated honey‐

moon. Fuller testified that he also had been hoping to recon‐

nect with his family, but they refused to see him. He told the

IJ that while married to Wood he had multiple affairs with

men and women.

The IJ denied all relief. She first concluded that Fuller’s

conviction for attempted criminal sexual assault—a class‐two

felony in Illinois for which he received a four‐year prison

term—was a “particularly serious crime” that barred him

from withholding of removal under the INA and the CAT.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(d)(2). She

reached this conclusion by noting that the criminal statute,

720 ILCS 5/12‐13(a)(1), punished the use of force or the threat

of force to commit an act of sexual penetration, and Fuller’s

victim informed police that she told him several times during

the encounter to stop and that he threatened to kill her.

The IJ then concluded that Fuller did not qualify for defer‐

ral of removal under the CAT. She deemed Fuller’s credibility

to be “seriously lacking,” based on his “substantially incon‐

sistent testimony and documentary evidence about many

matters which go to the heart of his claims.” The IJ did not

believe Fuller’s basic assertion that he is bisexual. Nor did she

believe that the Jamaican government would regard him as

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15‐3487 5

such. She offered a number of reasons for these determina‐

tions, some of which, as the dissent points out, could be criti‐

cized for betraying a lack of understanding about bisexuality,

but others of which rest on stronger grounds. Her questiona‐

ble reasons included the fact that Fuller had been married to

a woman, fathered children with two different women, and

was convicted for sexual assault on a woman. None of those

actions is necessarily inconsistent with a bisexual orientation;

after all, the very word “bisexual” indicates that the person is

attracted to both women and men. But the IJ relied on much

more than a mistaken assumption that a bisexual man would

not marry a woman, father children, or commit sexual as‐

saults.

The IJ criticized Fuller for some glaring discrepancies in

his written statement and testimony about the Ocho Rios

shooting incident. In his written statement, for instance,

Fuller said that he was shot during his college years, from

1983 to 1988, at a party hosted by his college boyfriend Henry;

he testified, in marked contrast, that the shooting happened

nearly a decade later at the house of a boyfriend named Ste‐

ven in 1997, shortly before his sister kicked him out of her

house. The IJ also was concerned about Fuller’s admitted lie

on an application he filed in 2001 seeking permission to travel

back to Ocho Rios. There he wrote that he wanted to visit his

sick mother in Jamaica, even though his mother at the time

was actually living in the United States. Finally, throughout

his testimony, Fuller confused his sisters’ names, mixed up a

sister with his mother, and gave different figures for the num‐

ber of sisters that he had.

People may not remember what they had for lunch 20 or

30 years ago, but some experiences leave a greater imprint on

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
6 No. 15‐3487

the memory than others. It was entirely reasonable for the IJ

to think that the experience of being shot falls in the latter cat‐

egory, and that someone for whom that is not an everyday

event would remember whether he was shot while in college

in the late 1980s or with a boyfriend in the late 1990s. The IJ

was also on solid ground when she held against Fuller his in‐

ability to remember which boyfriend (Henry or Steven) was

present at the shooting, as well as his inability to keep his sis‐

ters straight (how many could there have been?) and his lie

about his mother’s whereabouts. These discrepancies, and

Fuller’s unconvincing efforts to explain them, were all fair

matter for the IJ’s credibility determination.

Fuller tried to bolster his claim of bisexuality with seven

letters from his children and friends, but the IJ offered sound

reasons for refusing to credit them. She explained that none

of the authors—including two ex‐boyfriends living in Califor‐

nia and Wisconsin—was available to testify in court. Worse,

several of them were stylistically suspicious, in that they all

had been signed “on a signature line made on a series of

dots.” The Ocho Rios shooting was mentioned in only a single

letter, in which the author wrote that Fuller had been shot on

multiple occasions, contrary to his testimony that he was shot

only once. The IJ also doubted the reliability of Fuller’s testi‐

mony that he had called the letter writers and several others

while detained; according to jail telephone logs submitted by

the government, he had made phone calls to only two num‐

bers, and only one call went through.

The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the IJ’s deci‐

sion. Regarding the IJ’s conclusion that Fuller was barred

from withholding of removal under the INA and the CAT, the

Board agreed with the IJ that Fuller’s conviction for attempted

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15‐3487 7

criminal sexual assault was a particularly serious crime. The

Board considered the factors set forth in Matter of R‐A‐M‐,

25 I. & N. Dec. 657 (BIA 2012), and In re N‐A‐M‐, 24 I. & N.

Dec. 336 (BIA 2007), and concluded that “reliable evidence”

showed that Fuller had committed his crime by threatening

the use of force, and that he had received a “significant sen‐

tence” for his serious conviction. The Board also found no

clear error in the IJ’s findings that Fuller “did not credibly tes‐

tify and did not establish that he has ever been bisexual.” And

because Fuller had not established that he was bisexual orthat

he would be perceived in Jamaica as bisexual—the basis of his

purported fear of torture—he had not met his burden of proof

under the CAT.

Our authority over this petition for review is circum‐

scribed by section 1252(b)(4) of Title 8, U.S. Code, which pro‐

vides as follows:  

Except as provided in paragraph (5)(B) [irrelevant here,

as it addresses people with bona fide claims to be U.S. cit‐

izens]  

(A) the court of appeals shall decide the petition only

on the administrative record on which the order of re‐

moval is based,

(B) the administrative findings of fact are conclusive

unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled

to conclude to the contrary,

(C) a decision that an alien is not eligible for admission

to the United States is conclusive unless manifestly

contrary to law, and

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
8 No. 15‐3487

(D) the Attorney General’s discretionary judgment

whether to grant relief under section 1158(a) of this ti‐

tle shall be conclusive unless manifestly contrary to the

law and an abuse of discretion.

No court shall reverse a determination made by a trier

of fact with respect to the availability of corroborating

evidence, as described in section 1158(b)(1)(B),

1229a(c)(4)(B), or 1231(b)(3)(C) of this title, unless the

court finds, pursuant to with subsection (b)(4)(B) of

this section, that a reasonable trier of fact is compelled

to conclude that such corroborating evidence is una‐

vailable.

Given this deferential standard, there inevitably will be cases

in which the reviewing court, or some of its members, will

disagree with administrative resolution of the issues, but sec‐

tion 1252(b)(4)(B) requires us to yield unless “any reasonable

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude” that the IJ (or

the Board) erred.  

In this petition for review, Fuller first challenges the

agency’s conclusion that his conviction for attempted crimi‐

nal sexual assault is a particularly serious crime that disqual‐

ifies him from withholding of removal. He contends that the

Board erred by failing to adhere to its own precedent and con‐

sidering improper factors. Fuller also maintains that the

Board erred in deeming his conviction an aggravated felony,

but the Board expressly declined to reach that issue and in‐

stead found him removable only under § 1227(a)(1)(D)(i).

Moreover, a crime may be “particularly serious” without be‐

ing an aggravated felony. See Ali v. Achim, 468 F.3d 462, 469–

70 (7th Cir. 2006). The Board relied on its precedent and ap‐

propriately considered relevant factors such as the elements

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15‐3487 9

of Fuller’s offense, the sentence he received, and the circum‐

stances underlying the conviction. We lack jurisdiction to re‐

view the agency’s weighing of those factors in the course of

determining whether a crime is particularly serious. See 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Estrada‐Martinez v. Lynch, 809 F.3d

886, 893–94 (7th Cir. 2015).

The central question in Fuller’s petition for review is

whether the IJ, seconded by the BIA, permissibly determined

that Fuller is not bisexual. This is a factual question, and thus

our review of the matter is constrained by the deferential

standard of review we just mentioned. We may grant the pe‐

tition only if we can conclude confidently that substantial ev‐

idence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility determi‐

nation. See Tawuo v. Lynch, 799 F.3d 725, 727 (7th Cir. 2015).

Our dissenting colleague, taking a fresh look at the evidence,

believes that the IJ erred. We cannot rule out that possibility,

but that is not the right question to ask. The question instead

is whether the facts compel a conclusion contrary to the one

that the IJ reached. While we might wish it were otherwise,

there is no exception under which plenary review is available

for factual questions of enormous consequence, as this one is

for Fuller.  

As we noted earlier, even though some of the IJ’s reasons

for disbelieving Fuller on this central point were mistaken

(and if that had been all she said, we would have granted this

petition), others were sound. The IJ properly highlighted her

concerns with Fuller’s inability to recall significant details of

the Ocho Rios shooting, which seemed to be the most serious

episode in which he claimed to have experienced harm based

on his sexual orientation. See Toure v. Holder, 624 F.3d 422, 429

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
10 No. 15‐3487

(7th Cir. 2010). The IJ was also concerned that Fuller had tes‐

tified inconsistently when he frequently confused his sisters’

names, called his sister his mother, and misstated how many

sisters he had. The judge was not required to accept Fuller’s

excuse that he had made a “mistake” about such basic facts.

See Zeqiri v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 364, 371 (7th Cir. 2008). Also,

like the IJ, we are disturbed by Fuller’s misrepresentation on

his 2001 immigration application. See Keirkhavash v. Holder,

779 F.3d 440, 442 (7th Cir. 2015). Finally, the IJ adequately ex‐

plained why she did not credit the letters Fuller submitted or

his account of how he obtained them. We conclude that sub‐

stantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Fuller did

not credibly establish that he is bisexual. See Arrazabal v.

Lynch, 822 F.3d 961, 964–65 (7th Cir. 2016). Because we cannot

say that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to

conclude to the contrary (i.e. compelled to conclude that he is

indeed bisexual), the agency properly denied Fuller’s appli‐

cation for deferral of removal under the CAT. See Krishnapillai

v. Holder, 563 F.3d 606, 621 (7th Cir. 2009).  

We are not insensible to the fact that immigration judges

sometimes make mistakes, and that the costs of such errors

can be terrible. A mistaken denial of asylum can be fatal to the

person sent back to a country where persecution on account

of a protected characteristic occurs; a mistaken denial of de‐

ferral of removal under the Torture Convention can have

ghastly consequences. If we could balance the magnitude of

the risk times the probability of its occurrence against the cost

of offering a few additional procedures, or a few more years,

in the United States, we would. Although this is thin comfort,

we note as well that if Fuller is able to gather new evidence

showing that the IJ was mistaken about his sexual orientation,

it is still possible for him to ask the IJ to accept, sua sponte, an

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15‐3487 11

untimely motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1) (“An

Immigration Judge may upon his or her own motion at any

time, or upon motion of the Service or the alien, reopen or re‐

consider any case in which he or she has made a decision, un‐

less jurisdiction is vested with the Board of Immigration Ap‐

peals.”). The IJ’s decision on such a request is discretionary

and unreviewable, see Pilch v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 585, 586 (7th

Cir. 2003); Calle‐Vujiles v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 472, 474 (3d Cir.

2003) (collecting authority). But if a petitioner’s showing were

strong enough, the IJ or the Board has the authority to act.

We DENY the petition for review.

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
12 No. 15‐3487

POSNER, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The majority opinion

upholds the denial of relief to Ray Fuller, a Jamaican citizen

who seeks relief against removal to Jamaica. His ground for

relief is that in Jamaica he would face a likelihood of perse‐

cution and torture because he is bisexual. The merit of his

claim depends on how two issues are resolved: whether

Fuller is bisexual and whether bisexuals are persecuted in

Jamaica. The rejection of the second point by the Immigra‐

tion Judge, upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals, is

cursory and unconvincing; but if he isn’t bisexual the error is

harmless. But the rejection of his claim to be bisexual is also

unconvincing. The immigration judge emphasized such

things as Fuller’s lack of detailed recollection of events that

go back as far as 1983 and a supposed lack of “proof” of bi‐

sexuality. Well, even members of this panel have forgotten a

lot of 33‐year‐old details. And how exactly does one prove

that he (or she) is bisexual? Persuade all oneʹs male sex part‐

ners to testify, to write letters, etc.? No, because most Jamai‐

can homosexuals are not going to go public with their ho‐

mosexuality given the vicious Jamaican discrimination

against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”)

persons, which is undeniable, as I’ll show.

Fuller testified before the immigration judge at length

and in detail about his being bisexual and having had nu‐

merous sexual relationships with both men and women be‐

ginning when he was a pre‐teen, and about the hatred di‐

rected against LGBT persons in Jamaica, including by mem‐

bers of his own family. He testified that in college he was

stoned by other students on several occasions and a few

years later taunted as gay by a group of men who sliced his

face with a knife. On another occasion he was robbed at

gunpoint by a man who called him a “batty man,” which is a

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15‐3487 13

Jamaican slur for a homosexual. And he didn’t make that up:

see “Batty boy,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Batty_boy (last visited Aug. 17, 2016, as were the other web‐

sites in this opinion), where we learn that “in 2006 Time

Magazine claimed that Jamaica was the worst place in the

Americas for LGBT people and one of the most homophobic

places in the world. Sex between men is punishable with up

to ten years in jail. Certain Jamaican music, which features

hostility to homosexuals, such as in a T.O.K. song ‘Chi Chi

Man’ which threatens to burn fire on gays and those in their

company, employs the term ‘batty boy’ to disparage LGBT

people. One notorious song, ‘Boom Bye Bye’ written by

dancehall musician Buju Banton, advocates violence against

batty boys, including shooting them in the head and setting

them on fire: “Boom bye bye, in a batty bwoy head/Rude boy nah

promote no nasty man, dem hafi dead.’” Our State Department’s

Human Rights Reports for 2012 and 2013 confirm the Wik‐

ipedia entry, as do a report by Amnesty International and a

decision by another federal court of appeals: Bromfield v.

Mukasey, 543 F.3d 1071, 1076–77 (9th Cir. 2008). The immi‐

gration judge’s opinion is oblivious to these facts.

Instead she fastened on what are unquestionable, but

trivial and indeed irrelevant, mistakes or falsehoods in

Fuller’s testimony, for example that he ”confused his sisters’

names, mixed up a sister with his mother, and gave different

figures for the number of sisters that he had.” What this has

to do with his sexual proclivities eludes me. The fact that an

applicant for asylum makes mistakes or even lies is material

to his asylum claim only if the mistakes or lies are ger‐

mane—which the mistakes (or lies) about his sisters and

mothers were not. He testified without contradiction that his

family has rejected him because of his bisexuality; it would

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
14 No. 15‐3487

be no surprise if, having been rejected by his mother and sis‐

ters, he lashed back at them, as by “mixing up” one of his

sisters with his mother. But the important point is the irrele‐

vance of his confusing his family relations, leaving me deep‐

ly puzzled about the statement in the majority opinion that

“we share the IJ’s concerns that Fuller had testified incon‐

sistently when he frequently confused his sisters’ names,

called his sister his mother, and misstated how many sisters

he had.” The majority opinion does not explain how this in‐

consistency could have any bearing on the question of

Fuller’s sexual orientation.

The immigration judge refused to believe the seven let‐

ters from Fuller’s children and friends attesting to his bisex‐

uality. The ground of the refusal was that none of the letter

writers—including two ex‐boyfriends, living in California

and Wisconsin respectively—was available to testify in court

and that several letters were stylistically suspicious because

they all had been signed “on a signature line made on a se‐

ries of dots.” There is no explanation of why this should be

considered suspicious, since while a signature line is often

an unbroken straight line it is sometimes composed of dots

or dashes instead. And there is no showing that the ex‐

boyfriends’ unavailability to testify was attributable to

Fuller’s fearing they wouldn’t help his case.

An incident in which Fuller had been shot in Jamaica be‐

cause of his being a batty man or batty boy was mentioned

in a letter stating that he’d been shot not just on that occa‐

sion but on multiple occasions, contrary to his testimony that

he’d been shot only once. The immigration judge did not in‐

dicate the significance of how many times he’d been shot;

and if there was exaggeration it was not by Fuller, whose in‐

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
No. 15‐3487 15

centive would be to exaggerate the violence visited on him

in Jamaica yet instead rejected the exaggeration. The number

of times he’d been shot could not be thought to have un‐

dermined his evidence that he is bisexual, when his own tes‐

timony minimized that number. It is true that Fuller

changed his position on the date of the shooting—in his

written statement he said it took place while he was in col‐

lege, which he attended from 1983 to 1988, but in oral testi‐

mony he said it took place in 1996. He may have misremem‐

bered, or for some personal reason have wanted to change

the date—what could the change have to do with whether he

is bisexual?

An obvious thing for the judge to have done in an at‐

tempt to sort truth from falsity in Fuller’s testimony and the

other evidence would have been to ask a psychologist to tes‐

tify about the credibility of Fullerʹs claim to be bisexual. Im‐

migration judges are authorized to do this—authorized to

select and consult, which they may and usually do on the

phone, an expert with expertise relevant to the case at hand.

Nor has any reason been given, either by the immigra‐

tion judge or by the majority opinion in this court, why if

Fuller is not bisexual he would claim to be in an effort to re‐

main in the United States, knowing that if he failed in his ef‐

fort to remain he would be in grave danger of persecution

when having lost his case he was shipped off to Jamaica. No

doubt once back in Jamaica he could deny being bisexual—

but no one who was either familiar with this litigation, or

had been one of his persecutors before he left Jamaica for the

United States, would believe (or at least admit to believing)

his denial.

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16
16 No. 15‐3487

There is still another wrinkle to the case ignored by the

immigration judge, and that is that homosexuals often are

antipathetic to bisexuals. See, e.g., San Francisco Human

Rights Commission: LGBT Advisory Committee, Bisexual

Invisibility: Impacts and Recommendations (2011), www.

lgbtqnation.com/assets/2011/03/bi‐invisibility.pdf; “Why Do

Gays Hate Bisexuals?” Answers.com, www.answers.com/

Q/Why_do_Gays_hate_Bisexuals; “What Gay Men Think

About Bisexuals,” YouTube, www.youtube.com/watch?

v=XUXzNowXVwo. This is not to say that they would be

likely to attack Fuller physically when he returned to Jamai‐

ca, but they might well talk about his return to the island—

the return of a bisexual—and some of the persons to whom

they talked might well be heterosexual and want to harm

Fuller physically. Word is likely to spread quickly in an is‐

land of fewer than three million inhabitants.

The weakest part of the immigration judge’s opinion is

its conclusion that Fuller is not bisexual, a conclusion prem‐

ised on the fact that he’s had sexual relations with women

(including a marriage). Apparently the immigration judge

does not know the meaning of bisexual. The fact that she re‐

fused even to believe there is hostility to bisexuals in Jamaica

suggests a closed mind and gravely undermines her critical

finding that Fuller is not bisexual.

Case: 15-3487 Document: 22 Filed: 08/17/2016 Pages: 16