Filed: Nov. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1679 EVELYN LOKENYE ITOE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-39-925) Argued: September 19, 2005 Decided: November 16, 2005 Before SHEDD, Circuit Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and Joseph R. GOODWIN, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation. Petition fo
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1679 EVELYN LOKENYE ITOE, Petitioner, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A78-39-925) Argued: September 19, 2005 Decided: November 16, 2005 Before SHEDD, Circuit Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and Joseph R. GOODWIN, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation. Petition for..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1679
EVELYN LOKENYE ITOE,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A78-39-925)
Argued: September 19, 2005 Decided: November 16, 2005
Before SHEDD, Circuit Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge, and
Joseph R. GOODWIN, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.
Petition for review granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Danielle L. C. Beach-Oswald, NOTO & OSWALD, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioner. James Eugene Grimes, Jr., UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Robert L. Oswald, NOTO
& OSWALD, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler,
Assistant Attorney General, Donald E. Keener, Deputy Director,
Francis W. Fraser, Senior Litigation Counsel, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of Immigration Litigation,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Evelyn L. Itoe petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (the Board) affirmance, without opinion, of
the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of her applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the United Nations
Convention Against Torture. Because we conclude that the IJ failed
to sufficiently consider Itoe’s positive evidence of her alleged
past torture on account of her political opinion, we grant Itoe’s
petition for review and remand her applications to the Board for
further review.
I.
Itoe, a citizen of Cameroon, alleges that she was an active
member of the Southern Cameroon National Council (SCNC) and was
affiliated with other groups seeking to promote democratic reform
and to establish an independent nation for English speaking people
in southern Cameroon. Itoe claims that she was imprisoned and
tortured for her political activities by Cameroon officials on
three separate occasions. First, she claims that in 1994 she was
arrested by police, detained for twelve hours, and severely beaten
about her entire body with clubs when she refused to provide
information about her political activities. Next, Itoe asserts
that she was arrested again in 1997 following her participation in
a protest against the government. She claims she was imprisoned
3
for ten days and beaten with belts over her entire body each day of
her captivity. Last, Itoe alleges that she was arrested in August
2000 and held for seven days for protesting the government’s
detention of one of the main leaders of the SCNC. She asserts that
she was repeatedly beaten while her hands were tied behind her back
and she was suspended by a rope. Itoe also claims that she was
hospitalized after her 1997 and 2000 imprisonments.
In 1998, Itoe was introduced to and began a relationship by
telephone with Richard Farmer, a United States citizen. Itoe
visited friends in the United States on a visitor’s visa in
February and March 2000, but she did not see Farmer during her
stay. After her final arrest in Cameroon in August 2000, Itoe
returned to the United States and met Farmer in person for the
first time in November 2000. Itoe married Farmer the next month,
and they lived together in Farmer’s home in Ohio. They applied for
adjustment of immigration status for Itoe based on their marriage.
Farmer and Itoe lived together only for a short while before they
separated, and Itoe moved to Georgia to live with friends.
Farmer and Itoe were scheduled to be interviewed by
immigration officials in late August 2001 relating to their
adjustment of status application. Itoe rejoined Farmer in Ohio
shortly before their scheduled interview. During the interview,
Farmer was questioned separately and admitted that his marriage to
4
Itoe was fraudulent. Since the interview, Farmer and Itoe have not
seen each other.
Two months later, Itoe applied for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Torture Convention. In support
of her applications, Itoe submitted, among other things, medical
records purporting to substantiate the hospital care she received
for her injuries incurred during her imprisonments in 1997 and
2000, State Department reports describing the activities of the
SCNC and the Cameroon government’s serious abuses of political
freedom, and letters from her mother and friend informing her that
the government was still searching for her and was continuing to
punish and even kill political protestors.
The IJ denied Itoe’s applications for relief, finding that she
failed to sustain her burden of proof because of her “total lack of
credibility.” J.A. 31. The IJ further concluded that Itoe “was
never arrested or detained on” the three occasions that she claimed
she was severely beaten. J.A. 25. Instead, the IJ determined that
Itoe, “in a desperate attempt to avoid removal from the United
States, has created a set of facts which, if true, would have
accorded the opportunity to be granted asylum.”
Id. The Board
affirmed the judgment of the IJ without opinion. Itoe now
petitions for review of the Board’s denial of her applications.
5
II.
Itoe argues that the IJ erroneously ignored much of her
independent evidence showing that she suffered past persecution.
We agree.
Because the Board affirmed the IJ’s ruling without opinion,
the IJ’s decision becomes the final agency decision for purposes of
our review. Khattak v. Ashcroft,
332 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir.
2003). Although we grant broad deference to an IJ’s credibility
findings that are supported by substantial evidence, an IJ who
rejects an applicant’s positive evidence because he believes it
lacks credibility should offer a specific and cogent reason for
disbelieving the evidence. Camara v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 361, 367
(4th Cir. 2004).1
The Attorney General has the discretion to admit into the
United States an applicant for asylum if the applicant establishes
that she is unwilling to return to her native country because of
past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on
account of, among other things, her political opinion.
Id. at 367.
If the asylum applicant establishes the requisite past persecution,
a rebuttable presumption arises that she has a sufficient level of
fear of future persecution.
Id. Although an unfavorable
credibility finding will generally defeat an asylum application
1
Itoe asserts that Camara is directly on point, and we agree
that it substantially controls our disposition of this case. The
government failed to even mention Camara in its brief.
6
based on a well-founded fear of future persecution, see Rusu v.
INS,
296 F.3d 316, 323 (4th Cir. 2002), a claim based on past
persecution will not necessarily meet the same fate because an
applicant who demonstrates that she suffered past persecution is
presumed to have the requisite level of fear of future persecution.
Camara, 378 F.3d at 369-70; 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1).
Itoe produced substantial direct and circumstantial evidence
that she suffered past persecution by the Cameroon government on
account of her political activities. The IJ did not address Itoe’s
hospital records, the State Department reports verifying the abuses
by the Cameroon government against political dissenters, the
letters from her mother and friend attesting that the police were
still attempting to find and arrest her, and other evidence
suggesting that Itoe suffered past persecution. Instead, the IJ
determined -- based primarily on his conclusion that Itoe’s
marriage was fraudulent -- that Itoe necessarily lied about her
alleged arrests and torture and that none of the three incidents
actually occurred.
We conclude that the IJ erred by failing to provide a specific
and cogent reason for discounting Itoe’s positive evidence of her
alleged past persecution. See
Camara, 378 F.3d at 370-71 (ruling
that IJ erred by overlooking evidence of past persecution based on
an adverse credibility determination). Although there may be
sufficient evidence supporting the IJ’s finding that Itoe lacked
7
credibility,2 that finding alone does not adequately address the
specific evidence proffered by Itoe showing that she was persecuted
by the Cameroon government on account of her political beliefs.
III.
Because the IJ erroneously ignored Itoe’s positive evidence of
her past persecution, we grant Itoe’s petition for review and
remand her applications3 to the Board for reassignment to a
different IJ for further review. See
Camara, 378 F.3d at 372.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED
2
In determining that Itoe’s marriage was fraudulent, the IJ
relied on documents and reports not included in the Joint Appendix.
Thus, we decline to determine whether the IJ’s credibility finding
is supported by substantial evidence.
3
In addition to her application for asylum, Itoe’s
applications for withholding of removal and for protection under
the Torture Convention are also remanded for further review. See
Camara, 378 F.3d at 370-72.
8