Guyanese loses appeal against asylum rejection in U.S.

The United States Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied the review of a petition filed by a Guyanese citizen whose initial application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) Act was denied by the Immigration Judge.

Mardai Reddi, a Guyanese citizen, testified that she was an active member of the ruling People’s Progressive Party in Guyana and was being targeted by members of the opposing People’s National Congress Party. Reddi claimed that in 2001 she was thrown from a car, caught in a shoot-out and had her home broken into as a result of her work.

The Immigration Judge however denied her application for asylum under these circumstances for lack of corroborating evidence because her testimony was void of specific detail. The IJ held that though she claimed that she was being victimized by the opposing PNC Party, she could not articulate the goals, platform, or policies of either party.

Moreover, her testimony was inconsistent with her airport interview and her written application, as she testified that the persecution she suffered took place in 2001, while she stated in her airport interview and application for relief that all of those events took place in 2000.

Also, the record provides substantial evidence supporting the agency’s determination that the corroborating evidence was reasonably available. The IJ identified letters, statements, membership cards, or other documentation of her membership or work in the PPP, medical records or other documentation of her injuries, or letters or statements from her mother, sons, or siblings, or other supporting documentation of the alleged break-in of her home, her hiding from the PNC, or the shooting of her neighbours, as reasonably available corroborating evidence.

As Reddi testified that she received medical treatment after she was thrown from a car in April 2001 and informed her mother of the incident, her mother was with her at the time of the shooting, her sons (including one son now in the United States) were with her at the time of the break-in, she informed her mother and her siblings about all of these incidents, and at least one sibling lived in New York, – she could have presented evidence to corroborate her claim.

The BIA declined to accept Reddi’s explanations for the lack of evidence, as she testified that she never asked anyone in the PPP or any member of her family to write a statement.

The BIA held that for the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is denied stating that upon completion Reddi’s excuse to stay in the United States during the investigation was therefore vacated adding that any pending motion for a stay of removal in the petition was dismissed as moot.