Tens of thousands of individuals come to the U.S. every year to apply for protection based on persecution in their home countries. On average, only about 30 to 40% of applications are granted, depending on the existing government policies. One of the most common reasons that applications for political asylum are denied is lack of credibility.
Credibility is important for a few reasons. First, most asylum applicants are not able to provide substantial documentary evidence to support their claim. When a person is genuinely escaping from persecution, it is unlikely that this person would have an opportunity to collect an abundance of documents. Further, persecutors are also unlikely to cooperate with the applicant by releasing inculpatory evidence. Finally, if an asylum applicant's account of his experience is not credible, there is no sound basis to assess the claim at all. If an applicant's account of one event is not believable, one may conclude that his or her whole story is not credible.
However, in some cases, credibility is difficult to ascertain due to cultural differences, discrepancies in translation, and also improper or insufficient case preparation.
For example, in a recent Ninth Circuit Court case (Dong v. Garland, 10/19/22), the Court affirmed the findings of the Immigration Judge (IJ) regarding credibility. The applicant filed a claim based on religious persecution. In his written statement, he mentioned that he was interrogated once during a detention by the government. However, he testified in court that he was interrogated twice. The IJ also found his demeanor suspicious. He waited ten seconds before answering the question about this omission, and he also changed his explanation. Another inconsistency regards his injuries. While his written statement mentions that he suffered “pain” from beating by police, in court he testified that he sustained injuries on his chest. When asked why he didn't seek medical treatment, he said that the police did not allow him to. The IJ pressed further and asked him whether the police told him not to tell others about the beating or not to seek medical treatment. He testified that he was not allowed to tell others about the beating. The IJ concluded that his testimony regarding medical treatment was less than candid. Finally, Dong presented a copy of his household registration and testified that his mother presented the original to the local notary after he left. Because the household registration listed his name rather than his mother's name, the IJ again made a negative credibility finding.
Although there is no way for us to know whether Dong was telling the truth, we can, however, understand how these inconsistencies can be explained. For example, the preparer of his application might have failed to confirm all the facts with Dong properly, and neglected to put down the first interrogation in the written statement. When he said he suffered pain in the statement, it does not mean that he did not sustain injuries. Each person's tolerance of pain is different. Further, when he said that the police did not allow him to disclose the beating, rather than to seek medical treatment, there is no direct contradiction. If Dong were to seek medical treatment, the doctors would certainly ask him how he sustained his injuries, and he would not be able to provide a plausible explanation without disclosing the beating. Regarding the house registration, it is commonly known that one may ask his/her family members to make such requests about civil documents on his or her behalf in many countries.
Credibility is key to a successful asylum claim in the U.S. legal system. Many asylum applicants are frivolous, and not based on truth and real events. However, even for applicants who have a true story to tell, this case illustrates the importance of presenting a credible claim. To present a credible claim, one must choose a preparer or attorney carefully, review the events meticulously to ensure accuracy, and to be able to testify in a direct, consistent, and believable manner.
(Immigration laws and policies change regularly. If you have any questions regarding this article, please visit www.1visa1.com to schedule a legal consultation.)
