• Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Family Immigration
    • Marriage
    • Employment Visas
    • H-1B Visas
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
    • Labor Certifications
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Attorneys
    • Philip M. Levin, Managing Partner
    • Don L. Pangilinan, Associate
    • Saja A. Raoof, Of Counsel
    • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
    • Scott A. Wilkinson, Associate
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

Philip Levin & Associates

Immigration Law

800-974-2691       
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Hearings & Appeals
    • Deportation, Removal & Asylum
    • Family Immigration
    • Marriage
    • Employment Visas
    • H-1B Visas
    • E-1 & E-2 Visas
    • Labor Certifications
    • I-9/Worksite Enforcement
  • Attorneys
    • Philip M. Levin, Managing Partner
    • Don L. Pangilinan, Associate
    • Saja A. Raoof, Of Counsel
    • Alec P. Wilczynski, Of Counsel
    • Scott A. Wilkinson, Associate
  • Blog
  • Contact Us

BIA Holds That An Immigration Judge May Rely On Inconsistencies To Support An Adverse Credibility Finding As Long As Either The Immigration Judge, The Applicant, Or The DHS Has Identified The Discrepancies And The Applicant Has Been Given An Opportunity To Explain Them During The Hearing. An Immigration Judge May, But Is Not Required To, Personally Identify An Obvious Inconsistency Where It Is Reasonable To Assume That The Applicant Was Aware Of It And Had An Opportunity To Offer An Explanation Before The Immigration Judge Relied On It.

January 29, 2020 Philip Levin

On December 12, 2019, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board) denied the Respondent’s request for oral argument and dismissed his appeal of an order by the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications for political asylum and withholding of removal. Respondent had entered the U.S. under the Visa Waiver Program and applied for asylum within a year of arrival. Placed into asylum-only proceedings before the IJ, Respondent testified about his refusal to enter the Ukrainian military due to his Russian Orthodox Christian religious beliefs and his fears of persecution on account of religion and for being perceived as a military deserter; he claimed he was inducted and allowed to engage in alternative military service, not required to undergo weapons training, and discharged after 1 year. He further testified he was recalled 6 years later, requested alternative service again, but called a deserter and beaten twice, which left him with post-contusion pneumonia, bruises and internal bleeding for which he received medical treatment. A day after starting treatment, Respondent stated he traveled to Hungary and obtained a fraudulent passport and returned to Ukraine the next day to continue his medical care. One month later, he filed a complaint against the officers who beat him but was attacked and beaten on his way home.

The IJ denied Respondent’s claim, finding him not credible primarily because of inconsistencies in the record. His appeal challenged the adverse credibility finding, arguing that the IJ erred by not personally identifying the inconsistencies and giving him a chance to respond. He also contended that DHS’s questioning about the inconsistencies on cross-examination was insufficient to correct that error.

The BIA began its analysis by framing the issue at hand as “whether, if inconsistencies in the record are obvious or have previously been identified by the applicant or the DHS, an Immigration Judge is personally required to specify the discrepancies and solicit an explanation from the applicant prior to relying on them to make an adverse credibility finding”; a footnote explained that findings of fact, including credibility determinations, are reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard. The Board stated that the consideration of inconsistencies by the IJ, whether they are found in testimony or between testimony and other evidence is a fundamental component of an adverse credibility determination; they need not go to the heart of the claim and an IJ can rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the totality of the circumstances establishes that the applicant is not credible.

Further, noted the opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in whose jurisdiction this case arose, has explained that an asylum applicant should have a meaningful opportunity to respond to an inconsistency that is not apparent before it may be considered as part of an adverse credibility finding. Additionally, the IJ is not required to adopt an applicant’s explanation for an inconsistency if there are other permissible views based on the record. In this context, the BIA concluded, because an applicant carries the burden of proof for asylum relief, “it is incumbent upon him to directly raise and clarify information that is obviously inconsistent.” An “obvious inconsistency,” explained the Board, is one that is sufficiently conspicuous as to be self-evident. Thus, the decision disagreed with Respondent’s contention that an IJ must personally identify inconsistencies and give the applicant a specific opportunity to explain them, finding that where an inconsistency is not obvious, the “key consideration” is whether it is reasonable to assume the applicant was aware of it and had the opportunity to explain it before the IJ relied on it.

The BIA also noted that Respondent’s appeal relied on Second Circuit caselaw referencing an IJ bringing a perceived discrepancy to a respondent’s attention, but stated that that decision held that the adverse credibility finding was inadequate because the IJ or DHS should have brought the discrepancy to the applicant’s attention to ensure that he had an opportunity to explain. Therefore, under the Board’s conception, if the IJ “identifies problems” with an applicant’s testimony, the court should, before rendering a decision, ask about the perceived inconsistency if the DHS does not bring it to Respondent’s attention on cross-examination. Citing to Second Circuit law, the opinion found it important that an IJ’s responsibility to identify, in advance of judgment, perceived inconsistencies “is not tantamount to a duty to assist the counseled asylum applicant in putting forward an affirmative asylum claim in the first place.” The BIA thus held that when inconsistencies in the record are obvious or have previously been identified by the applicant or DHS, the IJ is not personally required to specify the discrepancies and solicit an explanation prior to relying on them in making an adverse credibility finding.

The Board also found no clear error in the IJ’s adverse credibility finding as he had given “specific and cogent reasons” for his conclusion, including “examples of significant internal inconsistencies in the applicant’s testimony, inconsistencies and omissions between his testimony and the documentary evidence he submitted, and the implausibility of his testimony.” Collaterally, the BIA concluded that the IJ properly relied on the implausible aspects of Respondent’s claim as support for the adverse credibility finding. The decision similarly disagreed with the applicant’s contention that any inconsistencies in the record were minor and irrelevant to his claim of persecution. The IJ noted that Respondent could not explain: his prior military history; his trip to Hungary; or, his medical claims, all which were central to his allegation of past harm. As Respondent did not establish eligibility for asylum relief in terms of proving past persecution and a fear of future harm, he had not “otherwise met his burden to prove eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal.” The Board also held the IJ properly concluded that Respondent’s incredible testimony was insufficient to establish CAT eligibility. The appeal was therefore dismissed. Matter of Y-I-M-, 27 I&N Dec. 724 (BIA 2019).

Filed Under: Asylum, BIA, Blog

Contact Us

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recent Blog Posts

  • BIA HOLDS THAT, WHERE THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL AND PROBATIVE EVIDENCE THAT A BENEFICIARY’S PRIOR MARRIAGE WAS FRAUDULENT AND ENTERED INTO FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVADING IMMIGRATION LAWS, A SUBSEQUENT VISA PETITION FILED ON THE BENEFICIARY’S BEHALF IS PROPERLY DENIED UNDER INA §204(c), EVEN IF THE FIRST VISA PETITION WAS DENIED MERELY BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF A BONA FIDE MARITAL RELATIONSHIP.
  • BIA HOLDS THAT, WHERE A CRIMINAL CONVICTION IS CHARGED AS A GROUND OF REMOVABILITY OR WAS KNOWN TO THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE AT THE TIME CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL WAS GRANTED UNDER INA §240A(a), THAT CONVICTION CANNOT SERVE AS THE SOLE FACTUAL PREDICATE FOR A CHARGE OF REMOVABILITY IN SUBSEQUENT REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS.
  • BIA Holds That, In Assessing Whether To Admit The Testimony Of A Witness As An Expert, An Immigration Judge Should Consider Whether It Is Sufficiently Relevant And Reliable For The Expert To Offer An Informed Opinion, And If It Is Admitted, The Immigration Judge Should Then Consider How Much Weight The Testimony Should Receive. In Considering How Much Weight To Give An Expert’s Testimony, The Immigration Judge Should Assess How Probative And Persuasive The Testimony Is Regarding Key Issues In Dispute For Which The Testimony Is Being Offered.
  • Attorney General Holds That, In Conducting Its Review Of An Asylum Claim, The BIA Must Examine De Novo Whether The Facts Found By The Immigration Judge Satisfy All Of The Statutory Elements Of Asylum As A Matter Of Law. When Reviewing A Grant Of Asylum, The BIA Should Not Accept The Parties’ Stipulations To, Or Failures To Address, Any Of The Particular Elements Of Asylum Including, Where Necessary, The Elements Of A Particular Social Group. Instead, Unless It Affirms Without Opinion Under 8 C.F.R.§1003.1(e)(4)(i), The Board Should Meaningfully Review Each Element Of An Asylum Claim Before Affirming Such A Grant, Or Before Independently Ordering A Grant Of Asylum. Even If An Applicant Is A Member Of A Cognizable Particular Social Group And Has Suffered Persecution, An Asylum Claim Should Be Denied If The Harm Inflicted Or Threatened By The Persecutor Is Not “On Account Of” The Respondent’s Membership In That Group. That Requirement Is Especially Important To Scrutinize Where The Asserted Particular Social Group Encompasses Many Millions Of Persons In A Particular Society. One’s Membership In A Particular Social Group Cannot Be “Incidental, Tangential, Or Subordinate To The Prosecutor’s Mention…[F]or Why The Persecutor [ ] Sought To Inflict Harm.” Accordingly, Persecution That Results From Personal Animus Or Retribution Generally Does Not Support Eligibility For Asylum.
  • BIA Holds That, After An Immigration Judge Has Set A Firm Deadline For Filing An Application For Relief, A Respondent’s Opportunity To File The Application May Be Deemed Waived Prior To A Scheduled Hearing, If The Deadline Passes Without Submission Of The Application And No Good Cause For Noncompliance Has Been Shown. Respondent Failed To Meet His Burden Of Establishing That He Was Deprived Of A Full And Fair Hearing Where He Has Not Shown That Conducting The Hearing By Video Conference Interfered With His Communication With The Immigration Judge Or Otherwise Prejudiced Him As A Result Of Technical Problems With The Video Equipment.

Practice Areas

  • Family Immigration
  • Marriage
  • Employment Visas
  • H-1B Visas
  • PERM Labor Certification
  • E-1 & E-2 Visas
  • Hearing & Appeals
  • Deportation, Removal, Asylum
  • I-9/Worksite Enforcement

San Francisco Main Office
930 Montgomery Street
Suite 502
San Francisco, CA 94133

Silicon Valley Office
5201 Great America Parkway
Suite 320
Santa Clara, CA 95054

North Bay Office
4040 Civic Center Drive
Suite 200
San Rafael, CA 94903

Santa Barbara Office
3463 State Street
Suite 516
Santa Barbara, CA 93105

Los Angeles Office
445 S. Figueroa Street
Suites 2600 & 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071

©2021 Philip Levin & Associates, Prof. Corp. All Rights Reserved.
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Employment Visas
  • Family Visas
  • Testimonials
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2021 · Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

R-1
TN

The TN nonimmigrant classification allows qualified Canadian and Mexican citizens to enter the U.S. and engage in professional business activities. PL&A will help you navigate through the TN application process by evaluating your eligibility, preparing supporting documentation for your application, and ultimately filing your application. 

B-1

PL&A will guide you through the consular process to receive a B-1 visa for specific short-term business purposes ranging from contract negotiations to seminars and conferences.

O-1

O-1 visas are for persons of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business or sports. 

J-1

Administered by the Department of State, the J-1 visa is for students, trainees, academics, researchers, professionals or experts participating in an approved Exchange Visitor program. PL&A will assist you and your sponsor with preparing the necessary paperwork and the consular process so you can begin your program at ease. 

E-1 & E-2

E-1 visas and E-2 visas are for nationals of countries with which the United States has a treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation (FCN) or bilateral investment treaty (BIT). If you are a nonimmigrant trader or investor seeking to conduct business operations or develop a new enterprise in the U.S., we will help you file for the appropriate visa. As a recognized expert in this area, Mr. Levin will provide experienced and dependable assistance with E-1 or E-2 visa applications. 

  • E-1: If you are a national of a country that conducts a significant volume of trade with the U.S. (or if you intend to develop trade between the U.S. and your home country) you might be eligible for entry under an E-1 visa. 
  • E-2: The E-2 visa allows investors from treaty countries to enter the U.S. for purposes of directing and developing a business, with all the commitments and risks implicit in entrepreneurial activity. 
L-1

The L-1 visa category is for executives, managers or professionals employed by foreign affiliates of U.S companies. The L-1 visa is divided into two classifications:

  • L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager
  • L-1B Intracompany Transferee Specialized Knowledge
H-1B

Many companies in the United States find themselves increasingly dependent on the talent, experience and energy of foreign national workers in professional, technical or specialized occupational fields. These employees typically enter the U.S. on nonimmigrant H-1B visas for “specialty occupations.” 

With extensive experience in business immigration, you can count on PL&A to guide your company or Human Resources department in preparing and filing an H-1B visa petition.

Green Card

Family preservation and reunification is a priority for our firm. Our attorneys have advised and assisted families from all over the world with entry visas, adjustment of status, and other immigration problems. 

  • Immediate Relatives: If you are the spouse, child, or parent of a U.S. citizen, we can help you obtain a green card through an Immediate Relative petition. 
  • Family-Based Preference: If your relative is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, we can assist you with your green card application through one of the family based preference categories.
Fiances

If you are a U.S. citizen and your fiancé/fiancée or spouse is overseas, our office will assist you to navigate the CIS requirements and regulations to have the case approved and then prepare you and your spouse for the interview at the U.S. Embassy. PL&A will also help you find the best ways to resolve any problems you encounter if a waiver is required in your case.

Marriage

Immigration through marriage is a common means of obtaining permanent residence in the U.S.  Since 1991, Philip Levin & Associates has helped hundreds of couples immigrate to the U.S. and build their lives together. 

  • I-130 Petition and Adjustment of Status: If you are married to a U.S. citizen, present in the U.S. and eligible to do so, our attorneys will assist you in preparing and filing the necessary I-130 petition and I-485 adjustment of status application in the U.S.
  • Immigrant Visa Consular Processing: If you are married to a U.S. citizen and reside abroad, we will assist you in preparing and filing the IV petition with an Embassy or Consulate-General in your native country. 
  • I-751, Remove Conditions on Residence: If you have been married less than two years at the time your green card was initially approved, our office will help you in the joint petition process to become a permanent resident.