9th Cir.

Joao Pedro Martins v. Pamela Bondi

March 2, 2026 ·UNKNOWN-1774523326102 ·Unpublished · By Raj Patel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 decision because the judge relied on multiple inconsistencies that were not supported 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. The immigration judge denied their applications based on adverse credibility determinations regarding inconsistencies in their testimony.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the totality of the circumstances standard for credibility determinations. It found that the immigration judge improperly relied on trivial inconsistencies, such as the definition of a meeting location and the timing of a father’s death. The court also held that the judge failed to allow the petitioner to explain an inconsistency regarding his time in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Additionally, the judge’s implausibility finding was based on speculation, and the instances of non-responsiveness did not meet the legal threshold for adverse credibility.

What it means going forward

The decision requires the immigration judge to re-evaluate the petitioners’ credibility without the invalidated findings. The judge may need to reopen the record to allow further testimony on credibility.