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 court held that the judge erred by relying on trivial inconsistencies, failing to allow the petitioner to explain non-obvious discrepancies, and speculating about the petitioner’s mother’s fear. The court remanded the case for the immigration judge to determine if the single remaining factor suffices to support credibility.
What it means going forward
The immigration judge must reconsider the petitioners’ credibility claims. The judge may need to reopen the record to allow further testimony regarding the petitioner’s veracity.