## Facts

- Mpoyi Mitondo, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), claimed he supported the Union for Democracy and Social Progress (UDPS), an opposition party.
- He alleged that after UDPS called a general strike in 2005, he was arrested at a demonstration, detained in harsh conditions, beaten, and sent to forced labor, escaping after about two weeks.
- He asserted that Catholic priests helped him flee to Zambia and arranged onward travel using false documents.
- He traveled to Scotland, obtained a French passport that was not his, and entered the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), which does not require a visa for French citizens.
- U.S. officials flagged the passport as stolen; Mitondo admitted he was not French.
- Because he entered under the VWP, he was placed in an “asylum-only” posture, having waived other bases to remain beyond the VWP period.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) accepted that he was a UDPS member but found his persecution and flight narrative not credible due to inconsistencies and implausibilities, and denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, and Mitondo petitioned for review.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, as affirmed by the BIA, where inconsistencies concerned travel chronology and documentation tied to the claimed escape.
2. Whether, given Mitondo’s VWP entry, judicial review was limited to asylum-related determinations in an “asylum-only” proceeding.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit denied the petition for review.
- The court held that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination because the IJ gave specific, record-based reasons beyond trivial discrepancies.
- The court treated the matter as an asylum-only case due to Mitondo’s VWP waiver and did not broaden review beyond that framework.

## Legal Principles

- Credibility findings in asylum cases are reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard and stand unless the record would compel a reasonable adjudicator to reach the opposite conclusion.
- An IJ may rely on material inconsistencies and implausibilities, including in the chronology and logistics of flight, where they bear on whether the persecution account is fabricated.
- A marked shift from vague testimony to highly detailed testimony between hearings may permissibly support an inference of coaching when tied to record concerns.
- In asylum-only proceedings for VWP entrants, the applicant is limited to asylum-related claims; other avenues to remain are waived by the VWP terms.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the agency’s denial of relief because the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence, and Mitondo’s VWP entry confined the case to asylum-only review.


Mitondo v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2008)