Court Opinion

ID: 9391242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-01 17:00:57.241056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:40.313504
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                             MAY 1 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Wilson Fomunyoh Atud,                           No. 21-1087

              Petitioner,                       Agency No.       A201-742-974

  v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
Merrick B. Garland, U.S. Attorney
General,

              Respondent.

                   On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                       Board of Immigration Appeals

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**
                               Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, CHRISTEN, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

       Wilson Atud Fomunyoh (“Atud”) petitions for review of the denial of his

claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Atud also challenges the finding that his

asylum claim was frivolous. Because the Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) adopted the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision but “did not merely

       *
            This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
       **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
provide a boilerplate opinion,” Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1152–53 (9th

Cir. 2021) (citation omitted), we review both decisions. See Ali v. Holder, 637

F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2011). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

      Atud claims that he is an Anglophone teacher who fled Cameroon after

being twice detained and brutally beaten by police because he helped organize

protests as a member of the Teachers’ Trade Union (“Union”). It is undisputed

that the Cameroonian government met these protests with fierce repression,

including killing protestors. In support of his claims for relief from removal,

Atud offered six sworn affidavits, including one from a Union official; a letter

from the hospital where he was allegedly admitted after his second arrest; and

his government-issued “Diploma of Senior Youth and Action Instructor.”

Atud’s counsel also attempted to submit a letter of appointment certifying

Atud’s post as a teacher in Bamenda, but the IJ did not admit the document

because it was in French and had not been translated. In turn, the government

submitted a 2011 non-immigrant visa application (“NIV application”), in which

Atud stated that he was a civil engineer.

      1. Adverse Credibility Finding. The denials of Atud’s claims for relief

rest on the IJ’s determination that Atud was not credible. Adverse credibility

determinations are reviewed for substantial evidence, Shrestha v. Holder, 590

F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010), and require a “healthy measure of deference,”

id. at 1041. Because the credibility determination must take “the totality of the

circumstances” into account, Kumar, 18 F.4th at 1152–53, the IJ is required to

                                        2                                    21-1087
“consider and address, as necessary or otherwise appropriate, relevant evidence

that tends to contravene a conclusion that a given factor undermines

credibility,” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044.

      Here, the IJ failed to consider credible evidence that strongly suggested

Atud was a teacher involved in protests who was subsequently arrested, beaten,

and forced into hiding. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040. This evidence includes

Atud’s government-issued “youth instructor” diploma, secondary school

transcripts with dates suggesting he could not have been in engineering school

on the dates claimed in the NIV application, and the signed letter from the

hospital.

      The IJ also improperly discounted the many affidavits. See Munyuh v.

Garland, 11 F.4th 750, 763 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[An] IJ’s error in discounting

[probative] documents is . . . relevant to the ultimate determination of [the

petitioner’s] credibility.”). The IJ gave these documents little weight because

“no witnesses apart from the respondent were available for cross-

examination . . . . [and] those individuals [who provided affidavits] were not

available for questioning.” While an IJ may decide affidavits are entitled to

little weight when they lack sufficient indicia of reliability, see id. at 762–63,

this is not such a case. The affidavits here “contain different information,

consistent with what each affiant would likely know, and all of which together

confirm the general contours of [Atud’s] account.” Id. at 763. Atud submitted

multiple affidavits that, taken together, support his account of having been

                                          3                                     21-1087
detained, beaten, and pursued by the Cameroonian military for his advocacy on

behalf of Anglophone teachers. These affidavits were “high quality,” as they

were notarized and included pictures of each affiant’s identification card, see

id., and merited full weight. Atud also submitted a declaration from a Union

official attesting that Atud was a teacher involved in planning the protests.

Though not notarized, this declaration was signed and provided a specific, non-

boilerplate account of Atud’s activism on behalf of Anglophone teachers in

Cameroon. See id. The IJ erred in rejecting the affidavits simply because none

of the affiants—all located in Cameroon and some facing persecution

themselves—were presented for cross-examination. At a minimum, the IJ

should have given Atud “adequate notice that [he] was required to present such

corroborative evidence and the opportunity either to obtain it or explain why it

was unavailable.”1 Id.

      Because the IJ erred by failing to consider all the record evidence (and

thus the totality of the circumstances), substantial evidence does not support the

adverse credibility finding. Several of the “inconsistencies” the IJ identified

either were not inconsistent, were trivial, or could be attributed to “the normal

limits of human understanding and memory.” See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044–

1
 Where an applicant’s testimony is found not credible, the IJ is not required to
provide an opportunity to obtain additional corroborating evidence. See Yali
Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017). But that rule does not
apply where the credibility determination is in question or where the IJ has not
appropriately considered the existing corroborating evidence. See id.; Munyuh,
11 F.4th at 763.

                                         4                                      21-1087
45; see also Munyuh, 11 F.4th at 760; Kumar, 18 F.4th at 1153. The IJ also

relied upon the 2011 NIV application in which Atud represented that he was an

engineer. That misrepresentation weighs against, but does not foreclose, a

positive credibility finding that must be based upon the totality of the

circumstances. We thus grant the petition and remand for further consideration

of Atud’s credibility.

      2. Frivolousness Finding. Determinations that a petitioner made a

frivolous application for asylum are reviewed de novo. Kulakchyan v. Holder,

730 F.3d 993, 995 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). An application for asylum is

frivolous if “[a]ny of the material elements . . . is deliberately fabricated.” 8

C.F.R. § 1208.20. A finding of frivolousness does not flow automatically from

an adverse credibility determination, in part because the IJ’s determination that

the applicant knowingly filed a frivolous application must be supported by a

higher standard: a preponderance of the evidence. Yan Liu v. Holder, 640 F.3d

918, 925, 927 (9th Cir. 2011); see Fernandes v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1069, 1076

(9th Cir. 2010). Here, the IJ relied on the 2011 NIV application to find that

Atud misrepresented a material fact (his profession). However, apart from the

NIV application, all the record evidence supports Atud’s claim that he was a

teacher. Because the NIV application is only one piece of evidence, and it was

filed before any of the alleged persecution took place, the frivolousness finding

is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

      3. CAT Claim. Denials of CAT relief are reviewed for substantial

                                          5                                     21-1087
evidence. Yali Wang, 861 F.3d at 1007. Because the denial of CAT relief was

based on the adverse credibility finding, we remand for further proceedings

consistent with this disposition.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED AND REMANDED.

                                       6                                  21-1087