Muyenga

MEMORANDUM *

Moses Musoke Muyenga, a native of Uganda, applied for asylum and withholding of removal claiming past persecution for his political activities. He was active in the Uganda Young Democrats, the youth wing of an opposition party in Uganda, and worked at an orphanage for children of AIDS victims. He claims that he was arrested, detained for four days, and beaten by government officers who accused him of supporting a militant rebel faction, the Allied Democratic Front (ADF), through his work at the orphanage. At the end of his detention, guards allegedly put him in a room with snakes and demanded he either give information about ADF or join the army. Muyenga opted for army service and, after two weeks of training, escaped when his convoy was ambushed. Muyenga claims that he met up with a friend and fellow Uganda Young Democrats member, Damiano Kigove, who also worked at an orphanage and had escaped from similar incarceration and conscription. The two men made their way to Kampala and then to the United States, and Kigove (who has been granted asylum) testified on Muyenga’s behalf. In support of his application, Muyenga submitted a letter dated August 15, 2000,…

dissenting:

I dissent. I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Yeimane-Berhe v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 907 (9th Cir.2004), does not apply to the instant case. Because I believe that the principles underlying Yeimane-Berhe control this case, I conclude that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) improperly based his adverse credibility determination on the single fraudulent document submitted by the petitioner.

In Yeimane-Berhe , this court held that a single fraudulent document that goes to the heart of an asylum claim does not necessarily warrant an adverse credibility finding. See Yeimane-Berhe, 393 F.3d at 911 . This is especially true “when there is no indication or finding by the IJ that the petitioner knew the document was fraudulent.” Id. Therefore, while such a document may support an adverse credibility determination, it is not sufficient evidence, standing alone, that the petitioner lacks credibility. See id.

Yeimane-Berhe is persuasive here. There is little evidence that Muyenga “knew or should have known that the [newspaper article] was counterfeit.” See Yeimane-Berhe, 393 F.3d at 912 . Indeed, *936 the IJ never concluded, nor does the record suggest, that Muyenga knew the…