Koussa v. Holder

 **Credibility**

The IJ based his adverse credibility finding on the following inconsistencies: (1) Koussa alleged “in her affidavit that [her colleague] attempted to rape her” but she did not claim in her hearing testimony that she was raped; (2) Koussa’s “written statement says she was detained three days, but her asylum application says she was ‘almost detained’”; (3) Koussa testified that two persons from the security force came to her home on June 3, took her for questioning, and beat her, but written statement does not contain this allegation; (4) Koussa claimed the passport was obtained on June 3 but later her son stated he obtained both his and his mother’s passport on June 1; and (5) Koussa’s asylum application for asylum indicates that Koussa confronted her boss and was taken into custody on the 27th of May, but she testified that she was taken in on May 28th.   These are minor inconsistencies which do not go to the heart of Koussa’s claim.

However, two additional inconsistencies do go to the heart of Koussa’s claim: (1) Koussa claimed in her written statement that July went slowly with many arrests, but she testified that there were no further problems between the detention on June 3 and when she left for the United States; (2) Koussa’s passport bears an issue date of May 24, 1998, but Koussa testified that the passport-renewal application was filled out in response to the detention and mistreatment occurring from May 28 through June 1.  Nonetheless,  neither the IJ nor the government attorney questioned Kousa about these or any of the other inconsistencies. Because there are significant inconsistencies between Koussa’s testimony and her supporting documentation that had the IJ questioned Koussa about them might support an adverse-credibility determination, the case is remanded so that the BIA, through its immigration judge, may confront Koussa with the potential inconsistencies.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/09/29/03-70599.pdf