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 disagreement.
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 not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the court found that the alleged inconsistencies regarding meeting location, time in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the death of the petitioner’s father were either not genuine inconsistencies or were utterly trivial. The court also found that the omission of details from the declaration was not probative of credibility and that the implausibility finding was based on speculation. Additionally, the court found that the instances of non-responsiveness did not meet the legal standard because the petitioner did not refuse to answer questions. The court held that the immigration judge must reconsider the remaining factor on its own.
What it means going forward
The case is remanded to the immigration judge to determine if the remaining credibility factor alone supports an adverse determination. The immigration judge may also consider reopening the record to allow further testimony.