Damaize-Job v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
787 F.2d 1332 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An asylum applicant's credible testimony of specific past persecution, including arrest, torture, and death threats, is sufficient to establish a 'clear probability of persecution' for withholding of deportation, and such credibility cannot be undermined by minor testimonial discrepancies, personal life choices, or failure to seek asylum in transit countries.
Facts:
- Alberto Damaize-Job is a citizen of Nicaragua and a Miskito Indian who supported the former Somoza regime.
- In 1979, the ruling Sandinista government arrested Damaize-Job, accusing him of being a Somocista National Guardsman.
- During a three-month imprisonment, Sandinista officials beat, tortured, and starved him, and repeatedly threatened him with death.
- Upon his release, the Sandinistas warned Damaize-Job that he would be killed if he were seen again.
- His uncle and sister were also accused of being Somocistas, were taken away by the Sandinistas, and are now believed to be dead.
- A month after his release, Damaize-Job fled to Costa Rica, returning to Nicaragua in 1980 to check on his arrested relatives.
- After being told his relatives had been killed, Damaize-Job obtained a Nicaraguan passport through a friend and fled to the United States in 1982 because he feared for his life.
Procedural Posture:
- The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated deportation proceedings against Alberto Damaize-Job in a federal immigration court.
- Damaize-Job conceded deportability but filed an application for political asylum and withholding of deportation.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ), acting as the trial court, found Damaize-Job deportable and denied his application for relief.
- Damaize-Job, as appellant, appealed the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the intermediate appellate body for immigration cases.
- The BIA dismissed the appeal, affirming the IJ's decision.
- Damaize-Job, as appellant, then appealed the BIA's final order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an asylum applicant's credible testimony of past arrest, torture, death threats, and the disappearance of family members, supported by general evidence of group persecution, establish a 'clear probability of persecution' for withholding of deportation, despite the applicant having remained in the country unharmed for a period and obtaining a passport?
Opinions:
Majority - Fletcher, J.
Yes. An applicant's specific and credible testimony regarding past persecution and threats establishes a clear probability of future persecution. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Damaize's testimony of his arrest, torture, death threats, and the disappearance of his family members constitutes specific evidence of individualized persecution, which is sufficient under precedents like Bolanos-Hernandez v. INS. The BIA's reasons for denial—Damaize's two-year presence in Nicaragua without incident and his possession of a passport—are unpersuasive; his presence is explained by his concern for his family, and a passport can be a tool for a government to expel dissidents. Furthermore, the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility findings were based on impermissible grounds: minor, irrelevant date discrepancies, moral judgments about Damaize's marital status, and the faulty assumption that a genuine refugee must seek asylum in the first country of arrival. Since the BIA was silent on credibility and the IJ's reasons were invalid, the court presumes Damaize's testimony to be credible and sufficient to meet the standard for withholding of deportation and, a fortiori, the more generous standard for asylum eligibility.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the evidentiary standards for asylum and withholding of deportation claims, particularly by defining impermissible grounds for adverse credibility findings. It establishes that factors commonly used by immigration adjudicators—such as obtaining a passport, not seeking asylum in transit countries, or minor testimonial inconsistencies—do not constitute substantial evidence to rebut a detailed, otherwise credible claim of past persecution. This ruling strengthens protections for asylum seekers by focusing the inquiry on the substance of their persecution claims rather than on peripheral or irrelevant factors. It sets a binding precedent within the Ninth Circuit that curtails the discretion of immigration judges to deny claims based on trivial errors or personal judgments.
Unlock the full brief for Damaize-Job v. Immigration and Naturalization Service