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, time spent in the Democratic Republic of Congo, their father’s death, and other details. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted the immigration judge’s order.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the immigration judge’s factual findings for substantial evidence. It concluded that the totality of circumstances approach requires considering all relevant factors and not cherry-picking facts that favor an adverse determination. The court found that the immigration judge relied on four inconsistencies, one omission, one implausibility, and three instances of non-responsiveness. Eight of these nine findings were unsupported by substantial evidence. 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 petitioner was not given a chance to explain. The inconsistency regarding the father’s death was trivial. The omission of details about a 2011 protest was less probative of credibility. The implausibility finding was based on speculation and lacked an opportunity for explanation. The non-responsiveness findings failed to show the petitioner refused to answer questions. Only one inconsistency regarding the timing of cross-border sales work was supported by substantial evidence.
What it means going forward
The decision requires the immigration judge to reconsider the petitioners’ asylum claims. The judge must determine if the single remaining factor of inconsistency regarding cross-border sales work is sufficient to support an adverse credibility determination on its own. The judge may also consider reopening the record to allow further testimony.