Ginzeh v. Holder
September 20, 2009
**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.”
No comments yet
newimmigrationcases
