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 applied the totality of the circumstances approach, which prohibits cherry-picking facts that favor a negative finding while ignoring facts that undermine it. The court 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 not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the court found the alleged inconsistency regarding the meeting location was not genuine, the time in the Democratic Republic of Congo was a simple human error that required an opportunity to explain, and the discrepancy about the father’s death was trivial. The court also found the omission of details regarding a 2011 protest was not probative of credibility and the implausibility finding was based on speculation. Furthermore, the court found the instances of non-responsiveness did not meet the legal standard because the petitioners did not refuse to answer questions. The court remanded the case for the immigration judge to determine if the single remaining factor suffices to support an adverse credibility determination.
What it means going forward
The decision requires immigration judges to carefully evaluate all relevant factors when making credibility determinations and to avoid relying on trivial inconsistencies or speculation. It reinforces the requirement that petitioners be given an opportunity to explain apparent discrepancies before an adverse finding is made.