Background
Petitioners Magalie Cenorbe and Wadner Raphael, nationals of Haiti and Chile, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The Immigration Judge had denied their claims, citing adverse credibility determinations due to inconsistencies in their testimony regarding the timing of alleged persecution events.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence. It found that Cenorbe’s testimony changed drastically between her initial hearing and a later Department of Homeland Security interview regarding when she first met her abuser and when she fled Haiti. The court noted that the agency could afford substantial weight to inconsistencies bearing directly on the claim of persecution. Similarly, Raphael’s testimony contained inconsistencies regarding the dates of attacks on his family and a long pause when confronted with conflicting police reports. These inconsistencies supported the adverse credibility determinations, which were fatal to their asylum and withholding claims. Regarding Convention Against Torture relief, the court found the petitioners presented no individualized evidence that they would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Haitian government.
What it means going forward
The petition for review is denied, and the stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.