Moussa Diallo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 28527, 232 F.3d 279 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An asylum applicant's credible testimony may be sufficient to meet the burden of proof, but an adjudicator can require corroborating evidence when it is reasonable to expect it; if such evidence is not provided, the applicant must offer a credible explanation for its absence, which the adjudicator must consider.
Facts:
- Moussa Diallo, a black citizen of Mauritania, lived with his family in Nouadhibou.
- In June 1990, soldiers from the white-dominated Mauritanian government came to Diallo's home, destroyed the family's identity papers, and deported his wife and other family members to Senegal.
- The soldiers arrested Diallo and held him prisoner in a village within Mauritania.
- For approximately eighteen months, Diallo was repeatedly beaten, tortured, and subjected to forced labor.
- In December 1991, Diallo's captors took him to the Senegal River, threw him into the water, and ordered him to swim to the other side.
- A Senegalese fisherman rescued him, and Diallo eventually made his way to a United Nations refugee camp, where he reunited with his family.
- After hearing that Senegal was sending refugees back to Mauritania, Diallo left the camp and eventually traveled to the United States, entering illegally in February 1994.
Procedural Posture:
- In October 1995, Moussa Diallo applied for asylum and withholding of deportation with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
- The INS charged Diallo with unlawful entry and initiated deportation proceedings before an Immigration Judge (IJ) at the trial court level of the immigration court system.
- In July 1996, the IJ denied Diallo’s applications, finding he failed to meet his burden of proof due to a lack of documentary corroboration.
- Diallo appealed the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the intermediate appellate body for immigration cases.
- On March 13, 1998, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed Diallo’s appeal.
- Diallo then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a federal appellate court, for review of the BIA's final order.
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 the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) err in denying an asylum application for lack of corroborating evidence when the BIA fails to (1) make an explicit finding on the applicant's credibility, (2) explain why corroboration is reasonably expected under the circumstances, and (3) assess the sufficiency of the applicant's explanations for the evidence's absence?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Walker
Yes. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) errs when it denies an asylum claim based on a lack of corroboration without undertaking a complete analysis. Although the BIA's legal standard—that credible testimony may suffice but corroboration can be required where reasonable—is correct, its application was fatally flawed. The BIA committed three fundamental errors: (1) it failed to make an explicit ruling on the credibility of Diallo's testimony, improperly conflating a lack of corroboration with a lack of credibility; (2) it failed to explain why it was reasonable to expect Diallo to produce specific documents, given the violent circumstances of his expulsion and his functional illiteracy; and (3) it failed to assess the sufficiency of Diallo's facially reasonable explanations for why he could not produce the requested evidence, such as his documents being destroyed by soldiers. Because of these failures, the BIA's decision is not supported by substantial evidence and must be vacated and remanded for proper consideration.
Analysis:
This case establishes a crucial procedural safeguard for asylum applicants by clarifying the analytical framework required when an adjudicator demands corroborating evidence. It prevents the BIA from summarily denying claims for lack of documentation without reasoned analysis. The decision mandates that the BIA make explicit findings on credibility, the reasonableness of expecting corroboration, and the sufficiency of the applicant's explanations. This precedent significantly impacts future asylum cases by holding adjudicators accountable for their reasoning and protecting applicants whose inability to produce documents is a direct result of the persecution they fled.
