9th Cir.

Joao Pedro Martins; T. M. M v. Pamela Bondi, Attorney General

March 2, 2026 ·UNKNOWN-1774549744228 ·Unpublished · By Raj Patel

The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of an immigration judge's denial of asylum and related relief. The court vacated the adverse credibility determination because the judge relied on inconsistencies unsupported by substantial evidence.

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 citing multiple inconsistencies, omissions, and implausibilities.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the substantial evidence standard to review the immigration judge’s factual findings. It concluded that the judge improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies, such as the timing of the petitioner’s father’s death, and failed to consider the totality of the circumstances. The court also found that the judge did not provide the petitioner an opportunity to explain certain alleged inconsistencies. Because the rejected findings undermined the core of the credibility determination, the court could not uphold the denial.

What it means going forward

The immigration judge must reconsider the petitioner’s credibility on remand, potentially reopening the record to allow further testimony. The petitioner’s removal is stayed pending the issuance of the mandate.