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 adverse credibility determinations regarding inconsistencies in their testimony about a political protest, their time in the Democratic Republic of Congo, their father’s death, and other factors.
The court’s reasoning
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the immigration judge’s factual findings for substantial evidence. The court concluded that eight of the nine findings supporting the adverse credibility determination were unsupported. The court found that the inconsistency regarding the meeting location was not genuine, the inconsistency regarding time in the Democratic Republic of Congo was a simple human error that the judge failed to allow the petitioner to explain, and the inconsistency regarding the father’s death was trivial. The court also found the implausibility finding based on speculation and the non-responsiveness findings unsupported 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 factor alone supports an adverse credibility determination. The judge may also consider reopening the record to allow further testimony on credibility.