Background
Petitioners Joao Pedro Martins and his minor daughter, citizens of Angola, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. An immigration judge denied their applications based on an adverse credibility determination. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted the immigration judge’s order without independent analysis.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. It found that the immigration judge relied on four inconsistencies, one omission, one implausibility, and three instances of non-responsiveness. The court concluded that eight of these nine findings were unsupported. The judge improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies, such as the timing of the petitioner’s father’s death, and failed to allow the petitioner to explain a misunderstanding regarding his time in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The court also found the implausibility finding based on speculation and the non-responsiveness findings unsupported by the record. Only one inconsistency regarding the timing of cross-border sales work was supported by substantial evidence.
What it means going forward
The immigration judge must reconsider the credibility determination based only on the single supported inconsistency. The judge may also consider reopening the record to allow further testimony.