Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; October 20, 2006; Federal Appellate Court
Emmanuel Kotto Boutou, a native of Cameroon, petitioned for review of a final order of removal after an immigration judge (IJ) denied his requests for asylum, restriction on removal, and relief under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion. The IJ's denial was based solely on a finding that Boutou was not credible.
Boutou has a degree in political science and economy from the University of Yaounde, where he became involved in political activism against President Paul Biya's regime. He was arrested in 1991 for organizing a strike, detained for five days, and tortured. After joining the Social Democratic Front (SDF), he faced further arrests and torture in 1997 and 1999 for political activities, including a protest rally. He was convicted and sentenced to four years in prison, during which he endured daily torture, including electric shocks.
While imprisoned, Boutou had sexual encounters with two women, resulting in two children born in 2001. He managed to obtain a passport with the help of a prison guard and was released early in 2002, although documentation indicated a later release date. After his release, Boutou spoke at a political rally in November 2002, evading arrest while others were captured. He subsequently went into hiding as authorities searched for him, destroying his property during their investigation.
A Cameroonian individual, Mr. Boutou, obtained a passport and visitor visa under the name Emile Sendji Matanga, used bribery to secure a boarding pass, and entered the United States on January 31, 2003, claiming to be Mr. Matanga. He applied for asylum in November 2003 following an initial interview in Houston, Texas, during which he was driven from Oklahoma City by another Cameroonian. At his hearing before an Immigration Judge (IJ), Mr. Boutou conceded removability but sought asylum, restriction on removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ found Mr. Boutou lacking credibility and denied his claims, labeling his asylum application as frivolous but refraining from formally marking it as such due to lack of prior warning regarding the implications of filing a frivolous application. The IJ also denied his request for voluntary departure. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ's decision, which is now subject to review.
To qualify for asylum, Mr. Boutou must prove refugee status by demonstrating past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on specified grounds. Failure to meet the asylum standard also precludes eligibility for restriction on removal or CAT relief. The BIA's per curiam decision allows for the review of the IJ's findings, which must be supported by substantial evidence. The IJ's credibility determinations are conclusive unless contradicted by a reasonable adjudicator. Inherent difficulties in documenting claims mean credible testimony can suffice for proof without corroboration; therefore, an IJ must provide specific reasons for any adverse credibility findings, which may include inconsistencies, lack of detail, implausibility, and demeanor.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) cannot base an applicant's credibility determination on speculation or unsupported personal opinion. Mr. Boutou argues that the IJ's credibility assessment relied on personal opinion and not on evidence. He asserts that his testimony about overcrowding and unsanitary conditions during his imprisonment in Cameroon aligns with the U.S. Department of State Country Report, which he submitted. However, the IJ did not specifically evaluate this testimony but merely noted it without indicating its significance.
Mr. Boutou challenges the IJ's finding that his claim of fathering two children while imprisoned was part of a 'preposterous' testimony. He compares this situation to the Elzour case, where an adverse credibility finding was deemed erroneous due to the IJ's reliance on personal expectations rather than evidence. The IJ in Boutou's case justified his finding based on inconsistencies in the treatment Mr. Boutou alleged he received, rather than personal opinion. The IJ noted that Mr. Boutou did not mention bribing prison officials for leniency, despite the Country Report indicating that such practices occurred.
Ultimately, the IJ's disbelief in Mr. Boutou's entire account casts doubt on the credibility of his claims about fathering children while in prison, rendering the issue somewhat irrelevant. Mr. Boutou also cites de Leon-Barrios v. INS, arguing that an adverse credibility finding cannot rest solely on minor inconsistencies. He points out that the IJ referenced a vague timeline regarding his joining the SDF party, but this detail lacked material impact on the IJ's adverse credibility ruling.
The IJ noted a single reference to the 1989/1992 issue and did not revisit it. Mr. Boutou's claim of minor inconsistencies regarding his imprisonment dates at Yoko was deemed significant. The IJ expected Mr. Boutou to accurately recall the dates of his imprisonment given the severity of his claims. However, his testimony contradicted the release document he submitted; he asserted he arrived at Yoko immediately after his conviction in February 1999, while the document indicated a June 2000 entry, and he claimed release on February 22, 2002, five months earlier than the document's July 22, 2002 date. Additionally, Mr. Boutou's claim of release conflicted with a doctor’s letter stating he treated Mr. Boutou for chronic dysentery from February 1, 2002, to November 15, 2002, which Mr. Boutou disputed, asserting he was still imprisoned at that time. The IJ found Mr. Boutou's explanations unsatisfactory, leading to confusion over the dates.
Even if these discrepancies were viewed as minor, the IJ provided other substantial reasons for his credibility finding, including: Mr. Boutou's evasive demeanor; letters from 2003 failing to mention his arrests; inconsistencies between his status as a law student and the doctor's reference to him; contradictions regarding his hiding and obtaining a passport; implausibility regarding securing a gendarme's escort; and a lack of supporting testimony from acquaintances in Oklahoma City. These factors supported the IJ's adverse credibility finding independently of the date inconsistencies. Mr. Boutou also argued that the IJ's credibility assessment was based on personal opinion, citing the Country Report's acknowledgment of widespread torture in Cameroonian prisons. However, the report's purpose is to provide contextual information for evaluating credibility, not to corroborate specific claims of persecution. Thus, the IJ was not obligated to accept Mr. Boutou's allegations of torture based solely on the Country Report.
Mr. Boutou's claim for asylum was denied based on significant credibility issues identified by the Immigration Judge (IJ), which cast doubt on his assertion of having been imprisoned and tortured, despite its alignment with the Country Report. The IJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence, leading to the conclusion that Mr. Boutou did not meet the asylum standard, nor the more demanding criteria for restriction on removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Consequently, the petition for review was denied. The appellate panel decided unanimously to forgo oral argument, submitting the case based solely on the written briefs. The judgment is not a binding precedent except in certain legal doctrines, and while the court typically disapproves of citing orders and judgments, it allows for citation under specific conditions. The REAL ID Act of 2005 introduced new rules regarding credibility determinations, applicable only to asylum applications submitted after its effective date of May 11, 2005. Since Mr. Boutou's application was filed in 2003, these provisions do not apply to his case. The decision references a doctor's letter provided by Mr. Boutou, which was translated from French to English.
