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 disagreement. The petitioners sought review in the Ninth Circuit.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. It found that the immigration judge improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies, including a minor discrepancy about a meeting location, a misunderstanding regarding time in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and a trivial difference in describing the timing of the petitioner’s father’s death. The court also found the judge erred by not allowing the petitioner to explain an omission and by speculating on the implausibility of the petitioner’s mother’s actions. The court concluded that the remaining factor of non-responsiveness did not meet the legal standard for unresponsiveness. Consequently, the adverse credibility determination was gutted, requiring remand.
What it means going forward
The immigration judge must reconsider the petitioner’s credibility based on the remaining factor and may reopen the record to allow further testimony. The petitioner’s removal is stayed pending the issuance of the mandate.