## Facts

- Abdelhadi Hor, an Algerian national, entered the United States in 2000 on a visitor visa and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
- Hor had a technical background, had worked as a chief information officer for a government-owned manufacturer, and was an active member of Algeria’s ruling party, the FLN.
- Hor testified that during Algeria’s conflict with the armed Islamist group GIA, he was stopped at a GIA roadblock in March 2000 and taken at gunpoint to a GIA leader.
- Hor stated the GIA demanded (1) a list of active FLN members and (2) his employer’s security plan; he was released after promising to comply.
- Hor did not comply and reported the incident to the Algerian military, which told him it could not protect everyone threatened by the GIA and gave him advice on avoiding the GIA.
- Hor claimed he later faced renewed threats from the GIA and feared persecution because of his refusal to cooperate and his political affiliation.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Hor not credible, denied all relief, and ordered removal; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed without opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility determination and resulting denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
2. Whether the IJ’s “implausibility” reasoning rested on permissible inferences from the record or on speculation inconsistent with record and country-conditions evidence.
3. Whether Hor’s departure from the United States (if it occurred) would moot judicial review of the removal order.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit granted the petition for review.
- The court vacated the BIA’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the IJ’s adverse credibility finding relied on irrational “implausibility” assumptions rather than substantial evidence.
- The court held that a petitioner’s departure does not moot a challenge to a removal order.

## Legal Principles

- Credibility determinations in immigration cases are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard, but deference does not extend to findings based on illogical reasoning, speculation, or conjecture.
- An IJ may consider “implausibility” in assessing testimony only if the inference is reasonable and grounded in the record, including objective country-conditions evidence.
- Country reports and other reliable background materials can corroborate (or contradict) an IJ’s assumptions about how persecutors and state authorities act under conditions of widespread violence.
- Removal or departure from the United States does not eliminate federal court jurisdiction to review the validity of a final removal order.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit set aside the agency’s denial of relief because the IJ’s credibility analysis turned on unsupported assumptions about the behavior of the GIA and the capacity of Algerian security forces, contrary to record evidence and documented country conditions, and remanded for a reevaluation consistent with proper substantial-evidence review.


Hor v. Gonzales, 421 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 2005)