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 expressing disagreement.
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 inconsistencies regarding meeting location, time in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the father’s death were deemed trivial or the result of simple human error. The omission of details about a 2011 protest was not probative of credibility. The implausibility finding was based on speculation and denied the petitioner an opportunity to explain. The non-responsiveness findings failed to show that the petitioner refused to answer questions. Because the rejected findings gutted the credibility determination, the court remanded the case for the immigration judge to determine if the single remaining factor suffices.
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 and determine if the remaining factor alone supports an adverse credibility finding.