About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

28 I. & N. Dec. 1 (2020-2023)

handle is hein.usfed/adin0028 and id is 1 raw text is: Cite as 28 I&N Dec. 1 (BIA 2020) Matter of F-S-N-, Respondent Decided June 12, 2020 U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals To prevail on a motion to reopen alleging changed country conditions where the persecution claim was previously denied based on an adverse credibility finding in the underlying proceedings, the respondent must either overcome the prior determination or show that the new claim is independent of the evidence that was found to be not credible. FOR RESPONDENT: Celestine Tatung, Esquire, Largo, Maryland BEFORE: Board Panel: MALPHRUS and HUNSUCKER, Appellate Immigration Judges; GEMOETS, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge. GEMOETS, Temporary Appellate Immigration Judge: This case was last before us on August 4, 2017, when we dismissed the respondent's appeal from an Immigration Judge's December 5, 2016, decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted and opened for signature Dec. 10, 1984, G.A. Res. 39/46, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 51, at 197, U.N. Doc. A/RES/39/708 (1984) (entered into force June 26, 1987; for the United States Apr. 18, 1988) (Convention Against Torture). The respondent has filed a motion to reopen the proceedings. The motion will be denied.1 In his decision, the Immigration Judge determined that the respondent, a native and citizen of Cameroon, had not presented credible evidence to establish the factual basis for her persecution claim. His adverse credibility finding was based on significant inconsistencies, omissions, and contradictions in the respondent's testimony and evidence, pursuant to section 208(b)(1)(B)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (2018). The Immigration Judge also found that the respondent did not provide reasonably available evidence to support her claim, because the testimony she gave regarding the severity of her physical mistreatment was not corroborated by her credible fear interview and prior statements, her medical records, or third party affidavits. Her claim to have been in hiding was directly contradicted by other evidence in the record. 1 Given our disposition of the motion, we need not address the respondent's stay request. 1 Interim Decision #3985

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most