Iman v. Barr, No. 17-72318 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for review of the BIA's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) to petitioner. Petitioner claims that he is a member of a minority Somali clan who fled Somalia after members of a majority clan forced him to work as a slave for over two years, beat him, and killed his brother.
The panel held that the BIA's adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. In light of the totality of the circumstances and in the context of the administrative record presented to the panel, the panel held that the evidence in this case compels the conclusion that petitioner's testimony was credible. The panel stated that neither of the two grounds that the BIA relied on supported its adverse credibility determination: first, that petitioner's testimony was nonresponsive or lacking detail, which indicated a lack of candor; and second, petitioner omitted from his asylum application information regarding his sisters' rapes. Rather, the panel explained that the record showed that petitioner gave responsive and detailed answers, and that the omission about his sisters' rapes was not probative of petitioner's credibility and was not inconsistent with petitioner's statements. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted Ibrahim Iman’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum and related relief on adverse credibility grounds, and remanded, holding that in light of the totality of the circumstances, and in the context of the administrative record presented, the evidence in this case compelled the conclusion that Iman’s testimony was credible. The panel concluded that to the extent the Board relied on the immigration judge’s findings that Iman’s testimony was nonresponsive or undetailed, substantial evidence did not support that determination. The panel explained that in order to base an adverse credibility determination on a petitioner’s nonresponsiveness, the IJ and the Board must identify specific instances, supported by the record, where the petitioner did not respond. The panel observed that both the IJ and Board failed to identify any instance during the merits hearing where Iman either refused to answer a direct question or declined to provide requested details regarding his persecution. The panel further explained that its own review of the record revealed no such instance, rather the record showed that Iman gave responsive and detailed answers about his claim. The panel also concluded that the omission from Iman’s asylum application of information about his sisters’ rapes, IMAN V. BARR 3 which he had previously disclosed to immigration officials during his credible fear interview, did not support the adverse credibility determination. The panel explained that although under the REAL ID Act omissions need not go to the heart of a claim to be considered when evaluating an applicant’s credibility, they must still be weighed in light of the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors. The panel further explained that a collateral or ancillary omission that, under the totality of the circumstances, has no tendency to suggest an applicant fabricated her or his claim is insufficient to support an adverse credibility determination. The panel observed that Iman’s omission concerned adverse consequences for third parties, rather than Iman himself. The panel explained that because asylum claims ordinarily are centered around events and circumstances that the applicants have experienced directly, Iman’s failure (or decision not) to mention the sexual violence against his sisters in his application for relief is less probative of his credibility. The panel also observed that the omitted information was not inconsistent with the statements in Iman’s asylum application, his direct testimony, or any other evidence in the record, but instead supplemented rather than contradicted Iman’s account of events. In addition, the panel noted that Iman’s testimony about his sisters’ rapes was extremely brief—accounting for less than a single page of the hearing transcript—and was elicited through cross-examination from the government. The panel observed that this therefore was not a case where an applicant volunteered new information at the merits hearing in an effort to buttress his claims through eleventh-hour testimony. The panel concluded that given Iman’s prior disclosure, the nature of the omitted information, and how the additional information was elicited at the merits hearing, the sole omission the 4 IMAN V. BARR agency identified in this case did not support its adverse credibility determination. The panel remanded for consideration of whether, accepting Iman’s testimony as credible, he is entitled to relief.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.