Background
Petitioners Joao Pedro Martins and his minor daughter, citizens of Angola, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge denied their applications based on an adverse credibility determination involving multiple inconsistencies, omissions, and implausibilities.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. It concluded that the immigration judge erred by relying on trivial inconsistencies, such as the timing of the petitioner’s father’s death, and by failing to give the petitioner an opportunity to explain apparent inconsistencies. The court also found that the judge’s finding of non-responsiveness was unsupported because the record showed the petitioner did not refuse to answer questions. The court held that the rejected findings gutted the adverse credibility determination, necessitating a remand.
What it means going forward
The case is remanded to the immigration judge to determine if the remaining factor alone suffices to support an adverse credibility determination. The judge may also consider reopening the record to allow further testimony.