Court Opinion

ID: 9558724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:16:03.409767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:33.371794
License: Public Domain

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
Because I would grant the Musollaris’ petition for review, I respectfully dissent. As the majority acknowledges, there are significant flaws in the IJ’s credibility determination. Most notably, the IJ completely ignored Albert Musollari’s testimony that he was beaten on four occasions by police controlled by the Socialist Party, *512testimony that was central to Musollari’s claim that he has been persecuted in the past. In my view, this flaw alone renders the IJ’s credibility determination defective. But even if the IJ’s credibility determination could be supported by the reasons he provided (most of which were also defective), I submit that the reason relied upon by the majority does not justify an adverse credibility determination.
Musollari, a member of the Democratic Party in Albania, testified that he was imprisoned and beaten by members of the Socialist Party working for the government on four separate occasions. The first imprisonment, in 1991, lasted one week. Musollari was held in a cell with sixty to seventy other individuals, beaten regularly, and subjected to “psychotic pressure.” The second imprisonment, in 1997, occurred after Musollari spoke out against what he believed to be fraudulent actions by the Socialist Party in the June and July 1997 elections (which the Socialist Party won). His house was ransacked and later he was taken from his home and held in prison for a day. A policeman put his boot on Musollari’s neck and threatened to kill him, and he was visited in his cell every two hours by policemen who beat him with rubber sticks and told him they were going to punish him for organizing against the Socialist Party. The third imprisonment occurred in 1998, when Musollari was taken to the police station and put in a dark cell. His wrists were bound with barbed wire and he was beaten. The policemen interrogated him regarding his involvement with the Democratic Party and threatened him. The fourth imprisonment occurred in November 2000, when because of Musollari’s refusal to help the Socialist Party during the October elections, policemen arrested him at a Democratic Party meeting and held him all day, threatening his wife and child. All of these incidents occurred when the Socialist Party was the majority party in government.
Inexplicably, in his order denying asylum, the IJ made no mention whatsoever of any of the physical mistreatment that Musollari suffered during his prison visits. In fact, the IJ went so far as to state, several times, that Musollari did not allege he was mistreated during the 1997 and 1998 detentions. For example, he stated, “I don’t think that the brief detention on [sic] October of 1997, even if credible, is important to the respondent’s claim, insofar as he was not mistreated and was released after only one day.” (Emphasis added.) He also expressed the following comment regarding the same imprisonment: “He was held all day but released the following day without charge. He makes no contention that he was mistreated during his detention.” (Emphasis added.) Regarding the 1998 imprisonment, the IJ stated only that his assessment was the same as his assessment of the 1997 imprisonment: “That he was held only for a brief time. There was an accusation that he was harboring illegal firearms and then released.”
In my view, these comments demonstrate a critical defect in the IJ’s credibility determination. Musollari’s asylum application is based on his fear of persecution by the Socialist Party upon his return to Albania, which means his testimony regarding these beatings is central to his claim. The IJ’s comments reveal that he simply ignored Musollari’s testimony on this matter. This is something the IJ is not permitted to do, and we have overturned credibility determinations in similar cases. See, e.g., Adekpe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 525, 530 (7th Cir.2007) (“We must affirm the IJ’s decision unless it is not supported by substantial evidence ... or unless the IJ ignored probative evidence.”); Tolosa v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 906, *513909 (7th Cir.2004); see also Agbor v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 499, 504 (7th Cir.2007); Nakibuka v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 473, 477 (7th Cir.2005) (“The testimony that the IJ ignored was central to Nakibuka’s claim of persecution.”); compare Iglesias v. Muka-sey, 540 F.3d 528, 531 (7th Cir.2008) (“a claim that the BIA has completely ignored the evidence put forth by a petitioner is an allegation of legal error”).
Given the IJ’s treatment of Musollari’s uncontradicted evidence regarding the basis for his claim, I do not think the IJ’s credibility determination is salvageable. But despite this critical error, the majority upholds the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because Musollari’s description of events in 1997 does not comport with what is known to have occurred in Albania during that year. However, that testimony, albeit inaccurate, is tangential to his claim and therefore does not discredit his claim.
To begin, I am not sure Musollari’s description of the election in 1997 is diametrically opposed to the report relied upon by the IJ in his determination. Musollari testified that the Socialist Party won the election “by using the force of the weapons and by corruption.” The report states that election campaigning for the 1997 election was “marred by violence” and despite the presence of the Multinational Protection Force (which had been sent to Albania by the United Nations to restore civil order in April 1997) three people were reportedly killed in violent incidents during the voting. It is true that Musollari did not mention the Pyramid Scheme which caused the civil unrest in early 1997, and it is also true that the results of the 1997 election were certified as having been satisfactorily conducted. But it is not clear to me from the transcript that Musollari was actively lying about what happened. At worst, Musollari’s description was an exaggeration of those events told from the perspective of someone who affiliated himself with the losing party in those elections.
Of course, an adverse credibility determination can be supported by a finding that a petitioner is exaggerating about something but it depends on the context in which the petitioner is offering the information at issue. See Hanaj v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 694, 700 (7th Cir.2006) (“An IJ must analyze inconsistencies against the backdrop of the whole record, as one factor in the overall credibility determination.”); Balogun v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 492, 504 (7th Cir.2004) (“Inconsistencies that do not relate to the basis of the applicant’s alleged fear of persecution are less probative than inconsistencies that do.”).
Even if Musollari’s description of the events of 1997 was completely inaccurate, Musollari was not asked to provide a factually correct history of Albania in 1997. Rather, he described the events that transpired in Albania in 1997 to provide the background for one of his alleged beatings by the Socialist Party. His description of the events of 1997 was in response to his counsel’s question, “How did this ‘suffering’ begin for you? ” and “What, if anything, in particular happened to you in July of 1997?” (Emphasis added.) His suffering was driven by his perspective; because Musollari believed that the 1997 elections were corrupt, he spoke out against the Socialist Party, which resulted in his 1997 imprisonment and beating.
We have held on many occasions that for an inaccuracy or falsehood to provide an adequate basis for an adverse credibility finding, that inaccuracy must go to the “heart” of the petitioner’s claim for asylum. Adekpe, 480 F.3d at 531 (7th Cir. 2007); Kllokoqi v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 336, 341 (7th Cir.2005); Hanaj, 446 F.3d at 700; Capric v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1075, 1090 (7th Cir.2004) (quoting cases for the proposition that minor inconsistencies or *514omissions will not support an adverse credibility finding); Korniejew v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 377, 383-84 (7th Cir.2004) (petitioner’s factual inaccuracy was not the “linchpin” of her asylum claim). It bears noting that even after the passage of the Real ID Act (which does not affect this claim), we have held that the IJ still must consider the purported inaccuracy within the context of all relevant factors. Kadia v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 817, 822 (7th Cir.2007) (“[Under the Real ID Act], [t]he immigration judge may consider inaccuracies or falsehoods that do not go to the heart of the asylum applicant’s claim, but he can do so only as part of his consideration of ‘the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors.’ ”).
I would follow these cases here because Musollari’s impression of the 1997 elections does not go to the heart of his claim. When viewed in the context of the entire hearing, Musollari’s description of the events that transpired in Albania in 1997 is entirely peripheral to his claim, which is that he fears returning to Albania because he was beaten by members of the Socialist Party working for the government on four separate occasions.
Furthermore, the point Musollari was making is that he was beaten for expressing his opinion about the 1997 elections and the Socialist Party. The truth of his opinion is not relevant — it matters only whether he became a target of violence based on his beliefs. That Musollari’s impression of how the Socialist Party gained power in 1997 differs from historically known facts has no bearing on whether he was beaten by the Socialist Party, nor does it reveal anything about his fear for his safety. The IJ does not explain otherwise. See San Kai Kwok v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 766, 771 (7th Cir.2006) (whether petitioner had a “bona fide relationship” with her husband had no bearing on whether she was subjected to an involuntary abortion, and the IJ did not explain his reasoning to the contrary).
Without addressing Musollari’s testimony that he was beaten and how that might relate to his impression of historical events, a credibility determination based on that impression alone bears no connection to Musollari’s claim. Indeed, if Mu-sollari is telling the truth that he was beaten by the Socialist Party for speaking out about the elections in 1997, it might explain his colored perception of the elections.
Ultimately, the IJ never made a credibility determination as to the key issue of whether Musollari’s fear of persecution is credible. Had he relied on Musollari’s inaccurate description of events to find that everything Musollari said (including his testimony regarding the beatings) was false, I think this might be a different case. But the IJ does not connect this factual inaccuracy to Musollari’s claim. In my view, this gap in the IJ’s reasoning cannot be fixed unless the IJ properly considers Musollari’s testimony that he was beaten and deems it credible or incredible. That is the testimony that goes to the very heart of his claim and the fact that the IJ completely disregarded it taints the entire determination. Cf. Geor-gis v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 962, 970 (7th Cir.2003) (“[H]aving found that the other five reasons given by the IJ for discrediting [the petitioner] are either unsupported by the evidence in the record or based on incomplete or improperly excluded evidence, we are not inclined to defer to his credibility determinations on this remaining sixth ground alone.”).
I express no opinion as to the ultimate merits of Musollari’s asylum claim or as to his credibility. But because the IJ’s decision completely ignored testimony that goes to the heart of the asylum claim, I *515submit that such a determination cannot be saved by reliance on tangential inaccuracies. I would grant the petition for rehearing.