Court Opinion

ID: 9901097
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 01:00:38.328712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:25.847215
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-60213         Document: 00516974419             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/20/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                               Fifth Circuit

                                      ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                      November 20, 2023
                                        No. 21-60213                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                      ____________                                           Clerk

   Paulinus Doh Ndungmbowo,

                                                                                 Petitioner,

                                             versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                               Respondent.
                      ______________________________

                         Petition for Review of an Order of the
                             Board of Immigration Appeals
                               Agency No. A203 600 685
                      ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Haynes, † and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Paulinus Ndungmbowo petitions for review of an order of the Board
   of Immigration Appeals affirming the denial of his claims for asylum,
   withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
   Torture. He challenges the BIA’s determinations that he lacked credibility
   and that he failed to provide sufficient independent corroboration in support

          _____________________
          †
              Judge Haynes concurs only in the judgment.
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-60213      Document: 00516974419           Page: 2   Date Filed: 11/20/2023

                                     No. 21-60213

   of his claims.     We agree that the adverse credibility determination is
   unsupported by the record. We likewise conclude that Ndungmbowo has
   presented independent corroborating evidence in support of his claims. We
   GRANT the petition for review and REMAND for further consideration
   of Ndungmbowo’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims.
                                          I
          Paulinus Ndungmbowo is a native and citizen of Cameroon. After
   conceding removability, Ndungmbowo sought relief in the form of asylum,
   withholding of removal, and protection under CAT. He alleged that he had
   been the subject of unlawful imprisonment and torture in Cameroon because
   of an imputed political opinion and his identity as an Anglophone.
          Ndungmbowo appeared in front of the Immigration Judge on June 11,
   2020, to testify in support of his I-589 application. Ndungmbowo testified
   that he had been repeatedly detained, arrested, and severely abused by the
   Cameroonian military for associating with and aiding the separatist
   movement protesting the Cameroonian government’s treatment of certain
   minority groups.
          Ndungmbowo testified that he was arrested twice by the Cameroonian
   military. The first arrest, occurring in March 2017 at his auto body shop,
   resulted in a beating so severe that it left him with a broken hand and leg.
   Ndungmbowo was later found unconscious on the side of the road and it took
   six months for his leg to heal. He was permanently disfigured—his left leg is
   shorter than his right leg and has less mobility.
          He learned after this arrest that the military was still looking for him
   and had killed one of his customers, thinking it was him. Frightened for his
   safety, Ndungmbowo moved to a different city: Yaoundé, the capital of
   Cameroon. In October 2018, he was again arrested and detained in the
   National Gendarmarie. He testified to being kept in inhumane conditions

                                          2
Case: 21-60213       Document: 00516974419         Page: 3   Date Filed: 11/20/2023

                                    No. 21-60213

   without access to a toilet or medical care, fed only every other day, and
   routinely beaten. He spent the first month in isolation. Later, two other
   inmates were added to his cell. These inmates eventually died while sharing
   the same cell and were not removed. He testified that a guard attempted to
   rape him and he suffered a broken tooth when he fought back. During this
   detention, he was never brought before a judge. He finally escaped in
   December 2018, at which point a warrant was issued for his arrest. On his
   way to his family’s home, Ndungmbowo learned that the military had burned
   it down, forcing the rest of his family to go into hiding. It was at this point
   that he fled Cameroon for Nigeria, and eventually traveled to the United
   States for asylum.
          Finding Ndungmbowo not credible, the IJ denied his applications for
   asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT. The IJ also
   denied Ndungmbowo’s asylum and withholding of removal applications on
   the basis that he had not established past persecution or a well-founded fear
   of future persecution. Last, the IJ denied CAT relief on the basis of adverse
   credibility. The BIA affirmed. Ndungmbowo timely appealed.
                                         II
          We review the BIA’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its
   legal conclusions de novo. Cordero-Chavez v. Garland, 50 F.4th 492, 495 (5th
   Cir. 2022) (citing Soriano v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 318, 320 (5th Cir. 2007)). We
   also have the “authority to review those portions of the IJ’s decision that
   impacted the BIA.” Nkenglefac v. Garland, 34 F.4th 422, 427 (5th Cir. 2022).
                                        III
          Ndungmbowo contends that the BIA erred in denying him relief
   because (1) the adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial
   evidence, and (2) he presented sufficient corroborating evidence in support
   of his claims for relief.

                                          3
Case: 21-60213      Document: 00516974419           Page: 4    Date Filed: 11/20/2023

                                     No. 21-60213

                                          A
          We begin by considering whether the discrepancies on which the BIA
   upheld the adverse credibility finding are substantially supported by the
   record.
          The IJ makes a credibility determination by taking into
   “[c]onsider[ation] the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant
   factors . . . without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or
   falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” 8 U.S.C.
   § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th Cir. 2009).
   An applicant fails to carry his burden for relief if he is found not credible. 8
   U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), 1229a(c)(4), 1231(b)(3)(C).
          “[A]n IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an
   adverse credibility determination as long as the ‘totality of the
   circumstances’ establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible.” Singh
   v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting Wang, 569 F.3d at
   538). Any adverse credibility determination “must be supported by specific
   and cogent reasons derived from the record.” Id. (quoting Wang, 569 F.3d
   at 537). We will defer to an adverse credibility determination “unless, from
   the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder
   could make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Id. (quoting Wang, 569 F.3d
   at 538). Adverse credibility determinations that are “unsupported by the
   record and are based on pure speculation or conjecture will not be upheld.”
   Wang, 569 F.3d at 537 (citing Mwembie v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 405, 410 (5th
   Cir. 2006)).

                                          4
Case: 21-60213         Document: 00516974419               Page: 5      Date Filed: 11/20/2023

                                           No. 21-60213

           The BIA relied on four inconsistencies in affirming the IJ’s adverse
   credibility determination. 1 While we are always reluctant to question a
   factual determination on a petition for review, we are compelled to conclude
   that the adverse credibility determination is not substantially supported by
   the record. Two purported “inconsistencies” are not real inconsistencies,
   and the remaining two, while arguable, are not by themselves enough to
   support an adverse credibility determination looking at the totality of the
   circumstances.
           First, the IJ found that a photograph purporting to depict an
   unconscious man was inconsistent with Ndungmbowo’s testimony that he
   had not been harmed during his second arrest. 2 The photograph depicts a
   man, laying on the ground, with his eyes closed.
           Ndungmbowo testified that the photo depicted him after he had been
   tackled to the ground, and that he was not unconscious. The IJ determined
   that the man in the photograph was unconscious, so Ndungmbowo’s
   testimony was inconsistent with this evidence. But there is no evidence in
   the record to support the IJ’s determination that the man depicted in the

           _____________________
           1
             The IJ also relied on a fifth purported inconsistency in Ndungmbowo’s story: the
   length of time between Ndungmbowo’s leaving Cameroon and arriving in Nigeria.
   Specifically, Ndungmbowo initially testified that he left Cameroon on December 27, 2018,
   but later stated that he arrived in Nigeria on March 20, 2019. The BIA expressly declined
   to rely on this purported inconsistency in affirming the IJ’s determination, and “on appeal,
   we review only the decision of the BIA, unless the IJ's decision impacted the decision of
   the BIA.” Nkenglefac, 34 F.4th at 427. Thus, we do not consider this fifth purported
   inconsistency.
           2
              Ndungmbowo argues for the first time that his attorney mislabeled this
   photograph as depicting him, when it was in fact his brother. Because this argument was
   not brought before or considered by the BIA in its final order, we decline to address it here.
   8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (requiring exhaustion); see also INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,
   17 (2002) (holding that proper remedy is to remand to agency for additional investigation
   of matter not previously considered).

                                                 5
Case: 21-60213        Document: 00516974419              Page: 6      Date Filed: 11/20/2023

                                         No. 21-60213

   photograph is unconscious. This speculation, “unsupported by the record,”
   about the condition of the man in the picture cannot be used to uphold an
   adverse credibility determination. Wang, 569 F.3d at 537.
           Second, Ndungmbowo testified at his removal proceeding that he had
   suffered an attempted rape during his second arrest. The IJ found this
   “significant omission” from his Border Statement, his Credible Fear
   Interview, and his Asylum Application was not reasonable “given the
   grievous nature of the conduct alleged.” 3
           Although Ndungmbowo first described the attempted rape during his
   removal proceeding, it is not the first time he alleged he had suffered severe
   harm. In his Declaration, he wrote he had been beaten and “severely
   tortured.”       His testimony regarding the attempted rape is easily
   encompassed within his previous statement that he was “severely tortured.”
   His failure to mention the attempted rape specifically does not support an
   inconsistency because Ndungmbowo was not required to detail with
   specificity every act of torture he endured over his month-and-a-half
   imprisonment. Therefore, this was not an inconsistency and should not have
   been used to contribute to the adverse credibility finding.
           Third, the IJ found that evidence undercut Ndungmbowo’s claim that
   he was detained from October 24 through mid-December 2018. In support
   of his application, Ndungmbowo submitted an employee affidavit indicating

           _____________________
           3
            The BIA accepted Ndungmbowo’s assertion that the omission of these facts from
   his Credible Fear Interview and his Border Statement did not support an adverse credibility
   finding. For this reason, we do not consider his Credible Fear Interview or the Border
   Statement in our analysis.

                                               6
Case: 21-60213        Document: 00516974419              Page: 7      Date Filed: 11/20/2023

                                         No. 21-60213

   that the employee had learned Ndungmbowo escaped from custody in “late
   October.” 4
           Ndungmbowo argues that the IJ improperly relied on this affidavit,
   which bore an incorrect date, and disregarded a substantial amount of
   evidence, including other affidavits and an arrest warrant, which
   corroborated his timeline. The IJ gave little weight to the other affidavits
   because the identification cards were illegible and because the affidavit of
   Ndungmbowo’s wife did not give specific dates, but the IJ did not explain
   why he was willing to give credence to the employee’s affidavit, despite the
   same deficiencies.
           Also before the IJ was a warrant for Ndungmbowo’s arrest, issued on
   December 20, 2018, charging him with “escap[ing] from detention at
   gendarmerie nationale” and “participat[ing]/organiz[ing] an illegal
   meeting(s).”      The IJ did not address the warrant in his finding that
   Ndungmbowo’s testimony was not corroborated by the evidence. Taking
   into consideration the totality of the record, including the arrest warrant, we
   find that substantial evidence exists to corroborate Ndungmbowo’s
   testimony that he was in custody from October through December 2018.
           This leaves only the fourth inconsistency on which the BIA relied—
   discrepancies in the birthdates of Ndungmbowo’s wife and father. Although
   the BIA may rely on such “tangential” discrepancies, ultimately, an adverse
   credibility determination must rest on the “totality of the circumstances.”
   See Wang, 569 F.3d at 538–39. Such minor discrepancies in the identity
   documents—tangential to Ndungmbowo’s claim and quite possibly the
           _____________________
           4
            Ndungmbowo submitted a “corrected” affidavit to the BIA with a motion to
   remand to the IJ for reconsideration. He asserts that the BIA abused its discretion when it
   declined to remand. Because we remand for other reasons, we do not address this
   argument.

                                               7
Case: 21-60213     Document: 00516974419              Page: 8   Date Filed: 11/20/2023

                                       No. 21-60213

   result of typographical errors—cannot bear the weight of the IJ’s adverse
   credibility determination.
          Although it is a rare case in which we reverse an adverse credibility
   determination, we have done so when the alleged discrepancies are not actual
   discrepancies. See Nkenglefac, 34 F.4th at 430 (reversing adverse credibility
   determination when not supported on a review of the record); Ndudzi v.
   Garland, No. 20-60782, 2022 WL 9185369, at *5 (5th Cir. July 22, 2022)
   (unpublished) (same). We do the same here.
                                            B
          We next address the BIA’s denial of relief on the ground that
   Ndungmbowo failed to present sufficient independent corroborating
   evidence for each of his claims. Although claims for asylum, withholding of
   removal, and protection under CAT impose different evidentiary burdens,
   see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii), 1229a(c)(4), 1231(b)(3)(C), we find that
   Ndungmbowo has met his burden of producing independent corroborating
   evidence.
                                            1
          First, we address the IJ’s denials of Ndungmbowo’s claims for asylum
   and withholding of removal. The IJ denied relief based on the adverse
   credibility finding. The IJ alternatively held that even if Ndungmbowo had
   been found credible, he had not established past persecution or a well-
   founded fear of future persecution. The BIA did not decide whether the IJ
   erred on this alternative ground.
          When the BIA has not spoken on a matter that “statute places
   primarily in agency hands,” this court remands to give the BIA opportunity
   to address the matter in the first instance. Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511,
   517 (2009) (citing INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16–17 (2002)).

                                            8
Case: 21-60213     Document: 00516974419           Page: 9     Date Filed: 11/20/2023

                                    No. 21-60213

   Therefore, we remand Ndungmbowo’s asylum and withholding of removal
   claims to the BIA for reconsideration consistent with our holding.
                                         2
          Last, we address Ndungmbowo’s CAT claim, which is “distinct from
   asylum and withholding of removal claims and should receive separate
   analytical attention.” Santos-Alvarado v. Barr, 867 F.3d 428, 436 (5th Cir.
   2020) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
          Under CAT, an applicant is eligible for relief if he can “establish that
   it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the
   proposed country of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). The regulation
   “requires the BIA to consider ‘evidence of gross, flagrant or mass violations
   of human rights within the country of removal’ and any ‘[o]ther relevant
   information regarding conditions in the country of removal’ in its likelihood
   -of-torture assessment.” Arulnathy v. Garland, 17 F.4th 586, 598 (5th Cir.
   2021) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(3)). When an applicant offers “non-
   testimonial evidence that could independently establish his entitlement to
   CAT relief,” an adverse credibility finding alone cannot defeat an applicant’s
   eligibility for relief. Id; see also Mboba v. Garland, No. 21-60416, 2023 WL
   4836671, at *7 (5th Cir. July 27, 2023) (unpublished) (remanding CAT claim
   denied exclusively on adverse credibility determination).
          We review the BIA’s decision “procedurally” to “ensure that the
   [applicant] has received full and fair consideration of all circumstances that
   give rise to his or her claims.” Abdel-Masieh v. INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th
   Cir. 1996) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
          The IJ denied CAT relief “primarily” on the basis of adverse
   credibility. The BIA affirmed denial of CAT relief based on the adverse
   credibility finding and insufficient corroborating evidence.         But even
   discounting the affidavits, as the IJ did, Ndungmbowo offered substantial

                                         9
Case: 21-60213      Document: 00516974419          Page: 10   Date Filed: 11/20/2023

                                    No. 21-60213

   non-testimonial evidence in support of his application, including: an arrest
   warrant issued after he escaped from custody in December 2018; a physical
   demonstration of the permanent disfigurement caused by the injuries
   suffered during his detention; photographs of citizens being persecuted by
   the government; a 2018 U.S. Department of State Human Rights Report on
   Cameroon; a 2017/2018 Amnesty International report on Cameroon; a 2019
   Freedom in the World Cameroon conditions report; and several news articles
   on the increasing violence being inflicted by the government on suspected
   secessionists.   Neither the BIA nor the IJ addressed this independent
   corroborating evidence in their determinations.
          We conclude that the BIA’s failure to consider the independent
   corroborating evidence “raises too great a concern” that it did not adequately
   consider the evidence before it. Emmanuel-Tata v. Garland, No. 20-60487,
   2022 WL 126982, at *2 (5th Cir. Jan. 12, 2022) (unpublished); see also
   Sharma v. Holder, 729 F.3d 407, 412–13 (5th Cir. 2013) (remanding where
   agency did not consider substantial evidence); Melendez-Monge v. Garland,
   No. 20-60814, 2022 WL 1532641, at *2 (5th Cir. May 16, 2022)
   (unpublished) (“While the BIA is not required to address every piece of
   evidence, it is required to consider key evidence.” (quotation marks and
   citation omitted)); Mboba, 2023 WL 4836671, at *7 (remanding CAT claim
   for reconsideration of independent corroborating evidence).
          This case differs from cases where no independent corroborating
   evidence has been offered. See Mohndamenang v. Garland, 59 F.4th 211, 213
   (5th Cir. 2023) (upholding denial because of lack of any independent
   corroborating evidence); Domingo-Torrez v. Garland, No. 20-61173, 2022
   WL 2867164, at *1 (5th Cir. July 21, 2022) (unpublished) (holding adverse
   credibility determination dispositive of CAT claim only because no
   independent, non-testimonial evidence offered).

                                        10
Case: 21-60213    Document: 00516974419             Page: 11   Date Filed: 11/20/2023

                                     No. 21-60213

          Because neither the IJ nor the BIA addressed the relevant country
   conditions reports, Ndungmbowo did not receive meaningful consideration
   of the relevant substantial evidence supporting his claims. Abdel-Masieh, 73
   F.3d at 585; see also Noumbissi v. Garland, No. 21-60012, 2022 WL 1744787,
   at *2 (5th Cir. May 31, 2022) (unpublished) (“There is no indication in the
   record that the BIA took [country conditions] evidence into account in
   deciding [applicant’s] CAT claim, and the failure to do so was error.”).
   Therefore, we grant Ndungmbowo’s petition for review with regard to his
   CAT claim and remand for reconsideration of the independent corroborating
   evidence.
                                 *        *         *
         We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND for
   reconsideration of Ndungmbowo’s asylum, withholding of removal, and
   CAT claims consistent with this opinion.

                                          11