Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Korompis v. Keisler
Citation: 252 F. App'x 408Docket: No. 07-0824-ag
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; October 31, 2007; Federal Appellate Court
Revilino Alexander Lompoliyu Korompis, an Indonesian citizen, seeks review of a BIA order affirming an Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA's February 6, 2007 decision adopted the IJ's findings from July 8, 2005, and both are reviewed together. The court applies the substantial evidence standard to the agency’s factual findings. Korompis's asylum claim was deemed time-barred as he did not argue its timeliness before the court, leading to its abandonment. For withholding of removal, the IJ correctly noted that eligibility is not restricted by the one-year asylum bar. However, the petition was denied because Korompis failed to meet his burden of proof, particularly in corroborating his testimony. Although the IJ expressed some concerns about his credibility, the adverse determination was limited to events post-arrival in the U.S. The agency's findings centered on Korompis's inability to provide necessary corroborating evidence, such as written confirmation of a church bombing from his family and documentation of a rock-throwing incident from a family member present at the event. The court emphasized that the agency must explain the need for such corroboration and why the applicant's explanations for its absence are inadequate, particularly when the applicant is otherwise credible. Korompis was given the opportunity to explain the lack of corroborating evidence for his claims but stated he did not think it was necessary. The Immigration Judge (IJ) noted that such documentation was expected since Korompis maintained contact with his family, who lived safely in Jakarta. Although Korompis claimed incidents of persecution, including being beaten by Muslim Indonesians and being inside a bombed church, the IJ found insufficient evidence to substantiate these claims, especially given that family members could have provided corroboration. The IJ acknowledged country condition reports indicating bombings in Jakarta but concluded that Korompis had not demonstrated a likelihood of future persecution upon return to Indonesia, as his family lived safely there, and reports showed improved interreligious relations and government action against extremists. Korompis failed to appeal the IJ's denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), thus precluding the court from considering that challenge. The petition for review was partially denied and partially dismissed due to this jurisdictional issue. Additionally, concerns were raised about the IJ’s conduct during proceedings, including inappropriate questioning that violated attorney-client privilege. Despite these concerns, the petition was ultimately denied in part and dismissed in part, with any stay of removal previously granted being vacated and pending motions declared moot. The request for oral argument was also denied.