Court Opinion

ID: 9386906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 00:00:28.409219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:09.343073
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60310        Document: 00516711136             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/13/2023

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

                                      No. 22-60310                                   FILED
                                    Summary Calendar                             April 13, 2023
                                    ____________                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk
   Imanzi Jean Paul Kamanzi,

                                                                                Petitioner,

                                            versus

   Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

                                                                              Respondent.
                     ______________________________

                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                            Board of Immigration Appeals
                              Agency No. A200 162 598
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Imanzi Jean Paul Kamanzi, a native of Congo and a citizen of Rwanda,
   petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
   (BIA) dismissing his appeal and affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ’s)
   denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
   under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60310      Document: 00516711136            Page: 2    Date Filed: 04/13/2023

                                      No. 22-60310

          Kamanzi argues that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s adverse
   credibility finding because it was not based on the “totality of the
   circumstances” and is not supported by the record. He further argues that
   the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s finding that he failed to submit reasonably
   available corroborating evidence. Finally, Kamanzi argues that the BIA erred
   in upholding the IJ’s finding that he was not eligible for asylum relief because
   he had failed to prove that he was not a citizen of Congo.
          This court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s decision
   only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
   511, 517 (5th Cir. 2012). The BIA’s factual findings are reviewed for
   substantial evidence, and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. Id. The
   substantial evidence test “requires only that the BIA’s decision be supported
   by record evidence and be substantially reasonable.” Omagah v. Ashcroft, 288
   F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir. 2002). This court will not reverse the BIA’s factual
   findings unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Orellana-
   Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
          Credibility Determination
          The IJ determined that Kamanzi was not a credible witness based on
   several findings, which Kamanzi challenges on appeal.              “Credibility
   determinations are factual findings that are reviewed for substantial
   evidence.” Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2020).
          First, the IJ found that Kamanzi gave conflicting testimony about why
   he had not tried to contact his family. Because the IJ reasonably found that
   Kamanzi’s testimony that he had not tried to contact his family in several
   years because he was scared was inconsistent with his later testimony that he
   had tried to search for his mother on the internet, we uphold the IJ’s finding.
   See Omagah, 288 F.3d at 258.

                                               2
Case: 22-60310        Document: 00516711136        Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/13/2023

                                    No. 22-60310

          The IJ also found that it was implausible that Kamanzi’s mother
   would not have tried to contact him once she had safely relocated to the
   refugee camp in Uganda. Kamanzi contends that the IJ’s finding is based
   solely on speculation and conjecture. See Wang v. Holder, 569 F.3d 531, 537
   (5th Cir. 2009).
          Kamanzi argues that there is no evidence in the record that his mother
   was safe in the refugee camp or that she had the capability to make
   international phone calls. This argument is belied by the record given
   Kamanzi’s testimony that his mother spoke by phone to his father’s best
   friend in Rwanda, told him that she was “doing okay” at the refugee camp,
   and gave him Kamanzi’s cell phone number. As such, the IJ reasonably found
   that it was implausible that Kamanzi’s mother would not have contacted him
   from the refugee camp. See Omagah, 288 F.3d at 258.
          The IJ also found that it is implausible that Kamanzi did not bring the
   letter from Jean Bosco Niyonsaba, his father’s best friend in Rwanda, to his
   interview with the asylum officer. Kamanzi relied heavily on the letter to
   support his claims of the Rwandan government’s surveillance and
   persecution of its citizens. Given the importance of the letter, Kamanzi’s
   explanation that he simply forgot to take it to his asylum interview, is
   implausible and the IJ was right to reject it. See Morales v. Sessions, 860 F.3d
   812, 817 (5th Cir. 2017).
          Kamanzi further argues that the IJ’s finding that Niyonsaba’s letter
   was unreliable is not supported by substantial evidence and is not a valid basis
   for finding that Kamanzi was not a credible witness. The IJ gave several
   reasons for finding that Niyonsaba’s letter was “suspect.” First, the IJ noted
   that the letter was written in English even though it “purported to be from a
   French speaker.” Though Kamanzi points out that there is no direct
   evidence that Niyonsaba did not speak English and notes that English is one

                                              3
Case: 22-60310      Document: 00516711136           Page: 4     Date Filed: 04/13/2023

                                     No. 22-60310

   of the four languages spoken in Rwanda, the specific evidence in the record
   does not compel the conclusion that Niyonsaba spoke English fluently
   enough to have written the letter, see Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
          The IJ also noted that all of the information in the letter was discussed
   in a previous phone call between Kamanzi and Niyonsaba. As such, the IJ
   found that the letter served “no legitimate purpose other than to try to
   bolster [Kamanzi’s] asylum claim.” Kamanzi essentially concedes that the
   letter “added nothing new,” but he argues that this alone does not make the
   letter suspect. The IJ did not rely on this fact alone and considered various
   other aspects of the letter in finding that the letter was suspect, including that
   it simply rehashed the phone conversation between Kamanzi and Niyonsaba.
   Kamanzi has not shown that the evidence compels the reversal of the IJ’s
   finding. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
          Kamanzi also challenges the IJ’s finding that Niyonsaba’s explanation
   that he had typed the letter on the computer rather than writing it because he
   feared that the government was monitoring him made no sense. While
   Kamanzi points to country conditions evidence showing that the Rwandan
   government monitors the private communications of its citizens, the IJ did
   not make a finding to the contrary. The IJ simply did not believe, based on
   Kamanzi’s testimony, that Niyonsaba had drafted the letter on the computer
   out of fear of being monitored by the government. In any event, the IJ’s
   findings considered in the aggregate, support the IJ’s characterization of the
   letter as suspect. See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
          The IJ also found it suspicious that Niyonsaba sought to “cut
   communication” with Kamanzi immediately after writing the letter. The IJ
   explained that “[t]his is something that false asylum seekers frequently try to
   say” (i.e., that a person providing corroborating information related to their
   asylum claim is unavailable to testify). Kamanzi argues that it was improper

                                               4
Case: 22-60310      Document: 00516711136          Page: 5    Date Filed: 04/13/2023

                                    No. 22-60310

   for the IJ to assume fraudulent intent on his part and question the authenticity
   of the letter, simply because other asylum seekers had “employed this
   tactic.” But to the extent the IJ may have erred by relying on inferences
   drawn from other proceedings, the other evidence on which the IJ based the
   credibility finding supports the finding, rendering any error harmless. See
   Singh v. Garland, 20 F.4th 1049, 1053 (5th Cir. 2021).
          Kamanzi next challenges the IJ’s finding that there was “a tension”
   between his claim that the Tutsi-led government in Rwanda persecuted his
   family and the fact that his father was a supporter or member of the Tutsis.
   He argues that the IJ overlooked the basis for his asylum claim, which is that
   his family was persecuted by the government because Kamanzi’s sister
   married a Hutu leader and rival of the Tutsi-led government.
          Though Kamanzi testified that his father was allegedly arrested after
   he took Kamanzi’s sister to Uganda for her safety, there is no evidence in the
   record as to who arrested his father or why he was arrested. As such, it was
   reasonable for the IJ to weigh Kamanzi’s testimony that his father was a
   supporter of the Tutsi-led government more heavily than Kamanzi’s
   speculation that his father was arrested by the government he supported.
   See Omagah, 288 F.3d at 258.
          Kamanzi complains that because he was living in the United States, it
   was unreasonable for the IJ to discount his testimony regarding his family’s
   persecution in Rwanda, which was relayed to him by his mother, as hearsay.
   Nonetheless, “it was within the purview of the IJ to make any credibility
   determinations and to accord the appropriate weight to be given to the
   evidence and testimony [Kamanzi] presented, including hearsay.” Ordonez-
   Mejia v. Sessions, 732 F. App’x 356, 357 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing Castillo-Lopez
   v. INS, 437 F.2d 74, 75 (5th Cir. 1971)).

                                               5
Case: 22-60310      Document: 00516711136          Page: 6   Date Filed: 04/13/2023

                                    No. 22-60310

          Finally, the IJ noted that the end of Kamanzi’s college career in the
   United States “just happened to coincide with the reported arrest of [his]
   brother-in-law in Rwanda,” which the IJ found, in itself, was “very
   suspicious.” Kamanzi challenges the suggestion that he “cooked up” the
   theory supporting his asylum claim and points out that he did not fall out of
   status until 2012, which was after his brother-in-law was arrested and
   sentenced to prison.
          Kamanzi testified that he decided to apply for asylum in January of
   2012, but he did not actually file his application until September of 2012,
   which was just a few months after he withdrew from college in May of 2012.
   Given Kamanzi’s other implausible testimony, it was not unreasonable for
   the IJ to question the timing of Kamanzi’s asylum application in evaluating
   his credibility. See Omagah, 288 F.3d at 258.
          Corroborating Evidence
          Kamanzi argues that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s
   determination that he had failed to submit sufficient corroborating evidence
   in support of his claims because the evidence identified by the IJ was not
   reasonably available to him. See Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 954 F.3d 757, 764 (5th
   Cir. 2020).
          Kamanzi’s challenge to the BIA’s finding focuses primarily on the fact
   that his sister’s marriage certificate was not reasonably available to him
   because he had no specific need for it until 2012, and by that time, his sister
   had already left Rwanda for the camp in Uganda and his mother had fled
   Rwanda following the murder of Kamanzi’s older brother. But the BIA
   accepted Kamanzi’s explanation for why he could not obtain his sister’s
   marriage certificate.
          As to his failure to present any other corroborating evidence, Kamanzi
   argues that the IJ should have found that letters from his sister and mother

                                             6
Case: 22-60310      Document: 00516711136          Page: 7    Date Filed: 04/13/2023

                                    No. 22-60310

   were not reasonably available to him because he had not had contact with
   them since 2012. This argument ignores the BIA’s finding that Kamanzi
   presented “no corroborating evidence from the time before his family left the
   country and were in regular contact with him.” The record therefore does
   not compel the reversal of the BIA’s determination that Kamanzi failed to
   present sufficient evidence in support of his claims for immigration relief.
   See Orellana-Monson, 685 F.3d at 518.
          Evidence Regarding Citizenship
          Kamanzi contends that the BIA erred in refusing to take
   administrative notice of Congo’s citizenship laws or, in the alternative, to
   remand his case to the IJ for consideration of his citizenship. See Matter of B-
   R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 119, 121-22 (BIA 2013).
          Kamanzi’s brief before the BIA contains no request that the BIA take
   administrative notice of Congo’s citizenship laws. Even if he made such a
   request, the BIA was not required to take administrative notice of the
   documents Kamanzi presented for the first time on appeal. See 8 C.F.R.
   § 1003.1(d)(3)(iv)(A).
          The BIA likewise did not abuse its discretion in refusing to remand
   Kamanzi’s case to the IJ for consideration of the two documents supporting
   his claim that he is not a citizen of Congo. See Suate-Orellana v. Barr, 979
   F.3d 1056, 1062 (5th Cir. 2020). As the Government points out, the
   documents were published in 2003 and 2011, respectively, and both predate
   Kamanzi’s April 22, 2019 hearing and, therefore, could have been presented
   to the IJ.
          Based on the foregoing, the petition for review is DENIED.

                                              7