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 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 court held that trivial inconsistencies, such as the timing of a father’s death, cannot form the basis of an adverse credibility determination. It also found that the judge failed to give the petitioners an opportunity to explain inconsistencies that were not obvious. The court determined that the remaining factor, timing of cross-border sales work, was insufficient to support the adverse credibility determination on its own.
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 regarding the petitioners’ veracity.