Bockou Essohou v. Gonzales ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             PUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    NELLY IMELDA BOCKOU ESSOHOU,          
    Petitioner,
    v.
                No. 05-2421
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney
    General of the United States,
    Respondent.
    
    On Petition for Review of an Order of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals.
    (A96-271-698)
    Argued: October 25, 2006
    Decided: December 15, 2006
    Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition for review granted; vacated and remanded by published opin-
    ion. Judge Shedd wrote the opinion, in which Judge King and Judge
    Gregory concurred.
    COUNSEL
    ARGUED: Alan Mitchell Parra, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner.
    Norman Louis Rave, Jr., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
    JUSTICE, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environ-
    ment Defense Section, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON
    BRIEF: Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn
    Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Office of Immigration Litigation,
    2                    BOCKOU ESSOHOU v. GONZALES
    Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
    Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    OPINION
    SHEDD, Circuit Judge:
    Nelly Imelda Bockou Essohou, a native and citizen of the Republic
    of the Congo, entered the United States in October 2001. She was
    admitted as a nonimmigrant and authorized to remain until late Janu-
    ary 2002. In April 2003, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
    ("INS") served her with a Notice to Appear at removal proceedings.1
    Subsequently, she applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and
    protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). She con-
    ceded removability. An Immigration Judge ("IJ") denied Bockou
    Essohou’s applications, finding that she failed to establish refugee sta-
    tus. Bockou Essohou appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immi-
    gration Appeals ("Board"), which reversed the IJ’s findings on
    refugee status but dismissed her appeal on alternate grounds. Bockou
    Essohou now petitions for review of the Board’s decision. For the rea-
    sons that follow, we grant the petition for review, vacate the Board’s
    decision, and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with
    this opinion.
    I
    The Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") permits the Attorney
    General to confer asylum on any refugee. 
    8 U.S.C. § 1158
    (b). A refu-
    gee is an applicant who is unable or unwilling to return to the country
    of removal "because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecu-
    tion on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particu-
    lar social group, or political opinion." 
    8 U.S.C. § 1101
    (a)(42)(A). The
    applicant bears the burden of making such a showing. Naizgi v. Gon-
    zales, 
    455 F.3d 484
    , 486 (4th Cir. 2006). However, an applicant who
    demonstrates that she was the victim of past persecution on the basis
    1
    The handling of this matter was subsequently transferred to the
    Department of Homeland Security ("Department").
    BOCKOU ESSOHOU v. GONZALES                       3
    of a protected ground is presumed to have a well-founded fear of
    future persecution. 
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.13
    (b)(1). The Department may
    rebut this presumption by demonstrating by a preponderance of the
    evidence either "a fundamental change in circumstances such that the
    applicant no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution" or that the
    applicant could avoid future persecution by internally relocating to
    another part of the country and it would be reasonably possible to do
    so. 
    8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.13
    (b)(1)(i)(A), (b)(1)(i)(B), (b)(1)(ii).
    On appeal, we afford substantial — but not unlimited — deference
    to the Board’s decision regarding an order of removal, applying the
    narrow standards of review mandated by Congress. See Ngarurih v.
    Ashcroft, 
    371 F.3d 182
    , 184 (4th Cir. 2004). Ultimately, we will
    uphold the Board’s decision unless it is "manifestly contrary to law."
    
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(4)(C). In making this determination, we review
    the Board’s factual findings under a substantial evidence standard,
    affirming the Board unless no reasonable factfinder could agree with
    the Board’s conclusions. Gandziami-Mickhou v. Gonzales, 
    445 F.3d 351
    , 354 (4th Cir. 2006). Indeed, we must affirm findings of fact
    unless "any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude
    to the contrary." 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    (b)(4)(B). Likewise, we defer to the
    Board’s credibility findings that are supported by substantial evi-
    dence. Camara v. Ashcroft, 
    378 F.3d 361
    , 367 (4th Cir. 2004).
    II
    A.
    In 1997, Bockou Essohou resided in the Republic of the Congo,
    where she was a member of the Congolese Movement for Democracy
    and Integral Development ("MCDDI"). As a member of the MCDDI,
    Bockou Essohou helped organize efforts to educate young people
    about the party’s presidential candidate. Following the outbreak of
    civil war in 1997, the "Cobras," a paramilitary group aligned with the
    sitting president and opposed to the MCDDI’s presidential candidate,
    came to Bockou Essohou’s home. The Cobras broke down Bockou
    Essohou’s door, searched her home, forcibly removed her from hiding
    under her bed, and beat and raped her. Eventually, Bockou Essohou
    lost consciousness. When she awoke, Bockou Essohou was incarcer-
    ated and only partially clothed. Bockou Essohou remained in deten-
    4                   BOCKOU ESSOHOU v. GONZALES
    tion for at least two months, during which time the Cobras continued
    to abuse her. Significantly, the Cobras questioned Bockou Essohou
    about her affiliation with the MCDDI, particularly the location of her
    MCDDI colleagues.
    Around August of 1997, Bockou Essohou escaped and began hid-
    ing from the Cobras for a period that spanned approximately four
    years. Initially, she fled to the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
    where she remained for only a brief time. At one point, Bockou Esso-
    hou stayed three days in a refugee camp there, but she left because
    the conditions were poor and rape was prevalent. Eventually, Bockou
    Essohou decided to return to the Republic of the Congo. She returned
    to her village in the Pool region and stayed for two years. Thereafter,
    Bockou Essohou decided to go to Brazzaville, where her mother
    lived. Bockou Essohou’s mother begged her not to live there because
    the Cobras were in that area and people had been inquiring about her.
    Accordingly, Bockou Essohou went to live with a girlfriend in
    another district.
    Bockou Essohou lived undisturbed with the girlfriend for about
    two months. After two months, the Cobras found out where Bockou
    Essohou was living. One day, while Bockou Essohou was not at
    home, the Cobras ransacked the girlfriend’s house searching for
    Bockou Essohou. They threatened to kill the girlfriend if she did not
    turn Bockou Essohou over to them. When Bockou Essohou came
    home, the girlfriend arranged for her to live with the girlfriend’s par-
    ents in the village of Banzandouga.
    Once in Banzandouga, Bockou Essohou lived for approximately 20
    months without detection by the Cobras. The Cobras eventually came
    to the village, and Bockou Essohou became fearful that they would
    find her and kill her. At that time, the girlfriend’s parents helped
    Bockou Essohou procure documentation and leave the country. After
    leaving the Republic of the Congo, Bockou Essohou resided in France
    for 20 days before coming to the United States.
    B.
    In an oral decision, the IJ denied Bockou Essohou’s application for
    asylum. The IJ reasoned that Bockou Essohou could not demonstrate
    BOCKOU ESSOHOU v. GONZALES                        5
    past persecution on the basis of a political opinion or any of the other
    statutory grounds for conferring refugee status. To the contrary, the
    IJ believed that Bockou Essohou was merely a victim of civil vio-
    lence. The IJ made no clear adverse credibility finding with regard to
    most of Bockou Essohou’s testimony; however, the IJ found it "sus-
    pect" that "someone like" Bockou Essohou would be questioned
    regarding the location of the MCDDI leader. The IJ found this portion
    of Bockou Essohou’s story unbelievable, absent some independent
    corroboration. Therefore, the IJ held that Bockou Essohou was not
    entitled to a presumption of future persecution under 
    8 C.F.R. § 1208.13
    (b)(1). The IJ also found that Bockou Essohou had not oth-
    erwise carried her burden of demonstrating a well-founded fear of
    future persecution on the basis of a protected ground.
    On appeal, the Board rejected the IJ’s finding that Bockou Esso-
    hou’s past persecution was not on the basis of one of the enumerated
    protected grounds, concluding that the interrogation about her
    MCDDI affiliates indicated that her mistreatment was due, at least in
    part, to her political affiliation. Notwithstanding this determination,
    the Board found that the Department had rebutted the presumption
    that Bockou Essohou would be persecuted in the future. Specifically,
    the Board found that Bockou Essohou "was able to live undisturbed
    for 20-plus months," which established her ability reasonably to relo-
    cate internally. J.A. 3. Throughout its opinion, the Board expressly
    treated Bockou Essohou’s testimony as credible.
    III
    In her petition for review, Bockou Essohou argues that the Board
    erred by finding that the Department rebutted the presumption of
    future persecution. We agree. At the removal hearing, Bockou Esso-
    hou testified that the Cobras were sent to Banzandouga to check in
    the village. In addition, Bockou Essohou described the situation in
    Banzandouga as "hopeless," and she claimed that the Cobras would
    have killed her if they had found her. On cross examination, Bockou
    Essohou further explained her time in Banzandouga, testifying that
    she had problems with the Cobras when they found out she was in
    hiding there. Though Bockou Essohou was able to avoid specific
    problems with the Cobras by fleeing the country, her testimony
    6                   BOCKOU ESSOHOU v. GONZALES
    reveals her continued, general fear of the Cobras while in the Repub-
    lic of the Congo.
    Given that the Board accepted the credibility of Bockou Essohou’s
    testimony, its ultimate conclusion that she could reasonably relocate
    internally is not supported by substantial evidence. Reading the record
    as a whole, we conclude that no reasonable adjudicator could find that
    Bockou Essohou was undisturbed while in hiding in Banzandouga. To
    the contrary, the only reasonable reading of Bockou Essohou’s testi-
    mony reveals a four-year period in which she was in hiding, con-
    stantly fearing for her life. Any intermittent period in which Bockou
    Essohou was not specifically troubled by the Cobras was not due to
    a reasonable, internal relocation; rather, it was due to her efforts to
    hide in conjunction with the timing of the Cobras’ forays. Accord-
    ingly, the Department did not rebut the presumption of future perse-
    cution that arose from the Board’s finding of past persecution. We
    hold that the Board’s failure to account for this presumption in
    Bockou Essohou’s favor renders its decision to dismiss the appeal
    manifestly contrary to law.
    IV
    For the foregoing reasons, we grant Bockou Essohou’s petition for
    review, vacate the Board’s decision, and remand for further proceed-
    ings consistent with this opinion.2
    PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED;
    VACATED AND REMANDED
    2
    The Board based its disposition of Bockou Essohou’s withholding of
    removal and CAT claims on substantially the same analysis that con-
    trolled its decision regarding her application for asylum. Because we
    vacate the Board’s asylum determination, we need not independently
    address the withholding of removal and CAT claims.