BIA Reverses CAT Grant Where Respondent Failed to Corroborate Claimed Sexual Orientation

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of CAT deferral to a Guinean respondent whose asylum status had been terminated based on a Minnesota conviction for criminal sexual conduct that the immigration judge found to be a particularly serious crime, holding that the respondent's claimed sexual orientation, the basis for his CAT claim, was not credible and was inadequately corroborated.

The Board held that the respondent's description of only one same-sex relationship, with a former cellmate and no further detail, his otherwise exclusively opposite-sex relationships including the one underlying his criminal conviction, and his shifting self-descriptions as homosexual, bisexual, and gay undermined his claim, and that he provided no independent letters, affidavits, or other corroboration despite years of residence in the United States. The Board also rejected the respondent's separate procedural challenges, including his argument that the immigration judge should have qualified his expert witness on additional subjects, finding no prejudice from any of the claimed errors, and ordered him removed to Guinea.

The full text of Matter of S-K-E- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1460421/dl?inline

BIA Holds Redacted Inter-Proceeding Declarations May Be Used Without Cross-Examination to Challenge Credibility

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to an Indian political-opinion applicant, holding that the immigration judge clearly erred by discounting twelve redacted declarations from unrelated asylum cases that DHS submitted to show suspicious, boilerplate-style similarities to the respondent's own declaration.

The Board held that redacting personally identifying information from inter-proceeding declarations sufficiently protects the other applicants' privacy under the asylum confidentiality regulation and clarified that the procedural safeguards for inter-proceeding comparisons do not require the other declarants to be made available for cross-examination, since the declarations are offered only to show textual similarities, not for the truth of their contents. The Board also held that the harm the respondent described, two assaults requiring only minor treatment, did not rise to the level of persecution as a matter of law, and remanded for the judge to reassess credibility using the correct word-and-phrase comparison framework and to address withholding and CAT relief in the first instance.

The full text of Matter of V-S-A- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1460841/dl?inline

BIA Vacates Asylum Grant for Failure to Address Numerous Credibility Inconsistencies

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to an Afghan respondent who claimed persecution by the Taliban based on his imputed political opinion as a women's-rights advocate, holding that the immigration judge's credibility finding failed to grapple with numerous unresolved inconsistencies in the record.

The Board identified conflicting testimony about when the respondent's problems with the Taliban began, contradictions regarding his employment history and payment for his advocacy work, inconsistencies between his hearing testimony and credible fear interview about how he identified his captors, and unexplained discrepancies concerning his travel through multiple countries before reaching the United States, including how he obtained visas to Germany and Austria along the way. Because an immigration judge must consider the totality of the circumstances in evaluating credibility, the Board remanded for a fuller credibility analysis before any reassessment of the respondent's asylum, withholding, and CAT claims.

The full text of Matter of A-Q-R-K- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1459986/dl?inline

Ninth Circuit Reverses Adverse Credibility Finding Rooted in Translation Difficulties

The Ninth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by an Angolan opposition-party activist and his family, holding that the agency's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence because it rested on trivial inconsistencies and disjointed testimony attributable to translation difficulties rather than any lack of veracity.

The Court held that minor variations in describing the exact location of an injury sustained during a chaotic police attack, an ambiguous asylum-application phrase that did not actually contradict later testimony, and apparent nonresponsiveness that instead reflected the petitioner's evident confusion amid garbled interpretation could not support an adverse credibility finding under the totality of the circumstances. The Court also held the agency committed legal error in denying CAT relief by overlooking country-conditions evidence tying the petitioner's political party membership to a particularized risk of torture and by failing to recognize that his family's months spent in hiding did not show a viable option for internal relocation.

The full text of Mbueno-Vita v. Blanche can be found here: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/08/28/24-5472.pdf

BIA Remands Where Credibility and Internal Relocation Findings Were Insufficiently Explained

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to a Nicaraguan respondent, holding that the immigration judge's favorable credibility finding did not adequately address several apparent inconsistencies in the respondent's testimony and corroborating evidence, including conflicting accounts of a 2018 protest and unresolved questions about the availability of arrest warrants.

The Board also held that the immigration judge failed to sufficiently analyze whether the respondent's several years living elsewhere in Nicaragua without incident rebutted the presumption of future persecution through internal relocation, and remanded for the agency to reassess credibility, corroboration, and relocation under the correct framework.

The full text of Matter of H-I-A-H- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1456346/dl?inline

Second Circuit Holds Immigration Judges May Require Corroboration Without an Adverse Credibility Finding

The Second Circuit has denied a petition for review filed by a Yemeni man seeking deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture after his conviction for stabbing two members of a rival family, holding that the BIA properly found his challenge to the corroboration requirement forfeited and that the agency's denial of relief was supported by substantial evidence.

The Court held that an immigration judge need not make an adverse credibility finding before requiring corroboration of otherwise credible testimony, since credibility and corroboration are distinct statutory inquiries, and clarified that this same rule applies to CAT claims even though the CAT regulations do not contain the same explicit corroboration language found in the asylum and withholding statutes. The Court also held that the agency reasonably found the petitioner failed to show a likelihood of torture given the multiple speculative links in his theorized chain of harm and his ability to relocate within Yemen.

The full text of Al Saidi v. Blanche can be found here: https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/OPN/21-6589_opn.pdf

BIA Remands Where Credibility and Internal Relocation Findings Were Insufficiently Explained

The Board of Immigration Appeals has sustained DHS's appeal from a grant of asylum to a Nicaraguan respondent, holding that the immigration judge's favorable credibility finding did not adequately address several apparent inconsistencies in the respondent's testimony and corroborating evidence, including conflicting accounts of a 2018 protest and unresolved questions about the availability of arrest warrants.

The Board also held that the immigration judge failed to sufficiently analyze whether the respondent's several years living elsewhere in Nicaragua without incident rebutted the presumption of future persecution through internal relocation, and remanded for the agency to reassess credibility, corroboration, and relocation under the correct framework.

The full text of Matter of H-I-A-H- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1456346/dl?inline

Fifth Circuit Vacates Adverse Credibility Finding Based on Mistranslated Afghan Calendar Dates

The Fifth Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a former Afghan government security officer who fled after the Taliban issued arrest warrants citing his work for two assassinated vice presidents, holding that the agency's adverse credibility finding rested on inconsistencies that were not actually inconsistencies at all.

The Court held that apparent discrepancies in the petitioner's employment dates were the product of an interpreter's failure to convert dates from the Afghan calendar and a mistaken premise about what he told officials during his credible fear interview, findings no reasonable factfinder could have rejected. The Court also held the agency failed to meaningfully consider photographic and documentary evidence corroborating his government service and remanded for the agency to reassess credibility without relying on the discredited inconsistencies.

The full text of Eqbal v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-60504-CV0.pdf

First Circuit Grants Petition Where Record Compelled Finding of Indicia of Incompetency

The First Circuit has granted a petition for review filed by a Nepalese asylum applicant whose immigration judge denied relief after finding him not credible, without ever addressing whether he showed signs of incompetency requiring further inquiry. The applicant had suffered a head injury from a political assault years earlier and, during his hearing, gave confused answers that led the judge to order a mental health evaluation.

The evaluation found that the applicant's ability to assist his own attorney was compromised by attention and concentration deficits, but the judge treated the report only as an unsuccessful attempt to rehabilitate credibility and never made any competency finding. The Court held that the combination of the applicant's head trauma and the psychologist's report compelled a finding of indicia of incompetency under Matter of M-A-M-, triggering the immigration judge's affirmative duty to inquire further, regardless of the applicant's positive demeanor or representation by counsel. The Court remanded for the agency to conduct the required competency inquiry in the first instance.

The full text of Rana v. Blanche can be found here: https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/25-1862P-01A.pdf

BIA Denies Reopening Where Forced-Abortion Claim Lacked Reasonably Available Corroboration

The Board of Immigration Appeals has denied a Chinese respondent’s motion to reconsider and motion to reopen after the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. The respondent claimed that she had been forced to undergo an abortion in China and argued that the agency improperly required corroboration.

The Board held that the Immigration Judge properly required corroboration of credible but unpersuasive testimony and properly found that corroborating evidence of the alleged forced abortion was reasonably available. The Board also rejected the respondent’s ineffective assistance claim, finding that counsel did not act unreasonably by relying on a certified translation of evidence submitted by prior counsel.

The full text of Matter of Y-H-L- can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1446391/dl?inline

Second Circuit Finds Consideration of Border Interview Appropriate under REAL ID

The Second Circuit has determined that it is appropriate to consider statements made during a border interview under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard for credibility.

The full text of Singh v. Bondi can be found here:
https://ww3.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/ee5a9581-65e6-4df0-8d62-453b78c084f2/10/doc/22-6077_complete_opn.pdf

Ninth Circuit Upholds Adverse Credibility Determination Based on Near Verbatim Repetition as Well as Factual Similarities to Other Asylum Claims

The Ninth Circuit has determined that the agency may permissibly render an adverse credibility determination when an asylum claim presents not only similar factual circumstances to multiple other cases, but nearly identifical word choice and narrative structure. “The upshot is that the linguistic, narrative, and factual similarities between Singh’s declaration and the declarations presented by DHS go beyond mere coincidence and cannot be explained away by the fact that these petitioners lived in similar situations in India. At a minimum, the IJ could so reasonably conclude. The narratives are nearly identical and, in some instances, are delivered with word-for-word repetition.”

The full text of Singh v. Bondi can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/17/23-1247.pdf

Ninth Circuit Determines it has Authority to Ascertain Date of Change in Foreign Law

The Ninth Circuit has determined that it has the authority to determine the date of change in foreign law, even when the administrative record is unclear about this information. In this case, because the Department of Homeland Security misstated the date of the change in foreign law during its cross-examination, the Court determined that the improper cross-examination may have had a substantial prejudicial effect on the agency’s assessment of the applicant’s credibility. “While the INA thus places strict limits on our ability to consider additional ‘evidence’ that is not contained in the agency record, it does not similarly restrict our ability to conduct independent legal research concerning any question of law that properly arises in our consideration of a petition for review of a removal order.” “And, here, the issue of the effective date of the relevant Chinese law’s repeal is a readily resolvable question of law, not a question of fact.” The Court further concluded that in interpreting foreign law, it may consult “any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence.”

The full text of Shen v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/07/24/16-71315.pdf

Fourth Circuit Finds Mixed Credibility Finding to be Permissible

The Fourth Circuit has determined that an immigration judge may render a mixed credibility determination —deeming an applicant’s testimony credible as to one subject but not another. “In the case of a mixed credibility finding, a presumption of credibility should be applied by the Board on appeal concerning the portion of testimony not explicitly determined incredible.”

The full text of Ayala-Osegueda v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221707.P.pdf

Second Circuit Casts Doubt on Reliability of Border Interviews

The Second Circuit has again cast doubt on the reliability of border interviews in a credibility determination. The court reiterated that “a border interview record is “‘inherently less reliable’ if (1) the record ‘merely summarizes or paraphrases the [noncitizen’s] statements’ rather than include ‘a verbatim account or transcript,” (2) “the questions asked are not designed to elicit the details of an asylum claim, or the . . . officer fails to ask follow-up questions that would aid the [noncitizen] in developing his or her account,’ (3) ‘the [noncitizen] appears to have been reluctant to reveal information to INS officials because of prior interrogation sessions or other coercive experiences in his or her home country,’ or (4) ‘the [noncitizen’s] answers to the questions posed suggest that the [noncitizen] did not understand English or the translations provided by the interpreter.’” An IJ is required to consider these factors before relying on a border interview for an adverse credibility determination if the record indicates the factors may be relevant.

The full text of Pomavilla-Zaruma v. Garland can be found here: https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e263f00e-d425-4546-a54b-58a3fa367add/10/doc/20-3230_opn.pdf#xml=https://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e263f00e-d425-4546-a54b-58a3fa367add/10/hilite/

Ninth Circuit Reverses Denial of Changed Country Conditions MTR

The Ninth Circuit has reversed the denial of a changed country conditions motion to reopen, finding that the new evidence presented was independent of a prior adverse credibility determination. Among other documents, the motion to reopen included Singh’s birth certificate, a letter from the Mann leader attesting to his membership in the party, and a letter from his mother stating that the police were looking for Singh. This evidence was independent of the facts that formed the prior credibility finding. Indeed, the IJ had expressly relied on the lack of such corroborating evidence to find Singh not credible. The prior adverse credibility finding thus logically could not have implicated the newly submitted evidence. 

The full text of Singh v. Garland can be found here: 

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/08/30/19-73107.pdf

First Circuit Remands for Agency to Reconsider Psychological Report

The First Circuit has remanded a case for the agency to reconsider the impact of a psychological report that diagnosed the petitioner with PTSD and indicated she was suffering from memory impairment. The court indicated the report was critical for the agency to consider in light of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.

The full text of Rivera-Medrano v. Garland can be found here:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/20-1667P-01A.pdf

Ninth Circuit Upholds Denial of MTR on Credibility Grounds

The Ninth Circuit has permitted the agency to rely on a prior adverse credibility determination premised on the applicant’s failure to establish his true identity when adjudicating a motion to reopen to pursue asylum. The court found that the issue of the applicant’s identity remained relevant to the new asylum evidence.

The full text of Greenwood v. Garland can be found here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/06/16/17-72389.pdf

Fifth Circuit Overturns Adverse Credibility Determination Based on Documents not in the Record

The Fifth Circuit has determined that a judge’s reliance on a credible fear interview transcript and a Q&A document from CBP - when neither document was in the record of proceedings - formed an improper basis for an adverse credibility determination.

The full text of Nkenglefac v. Garland can be found here:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-60647-CV0.pdf

First Circuit Finds CBP Record of Sworn Statement Insufficient to Sustain Adverse Credibility Determination

The First Circuit has found a record of sworn statement to be insufficiently reliable to sustain an adverse credibility determination where the statement listed a different name in the question and answer section than in the biographic information, listed an incorrect date of birth for the petitioner, and was signed by a border patrol officer months after the alleged encounter with the petitioner.

The full text of Menjivar Bonilla v. Garland can be found here:

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/19-1165P-01A.pdf