Ginzeh v. Holder
**Credibility; CAT**
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination as Ginzeh did not adequately explain the inconsistencies between his testimony and prior applications. However, the IJ and BIA erred in denying CAT relief based solely on an adverse credibility determination made during an asylum assessment. There are further means in the record for assessing whether it is more likely than not that the petitioner will be tortured if returned to his home country. The IJ was required to examine “all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture.”
Dimitrov v. Holder
** Credibility**
The BIA erred in finding Dimitrov incredible. First, it is not implausible that Dimitrov did not speak the Roma language– evidence that some Bulgarian Gypsies speak
Roma, such as that found in the State Department reports, does not contract Dimitrov’s testimony that some do not. And nevertheless, the Country Report also states that “Romani children and ethnic Bulgarian children generally attended separate schools.” Dimitrov also explained that his parents avoided speaking the Roma language with him at home and sent him to a Bulgarian school. The BIA additionally erred in doubting his account of his condition after he was beaten. The differences between the medical certificate reporting his condition and his testimony were not contradictions but were due to “emphasis, phrasing or degree of severity.” Further, the BIA mischaracterized Dimitrov’s testimony as “vague”; he supplied a detailed narrative.
newimmigrationcases
leave a comment