# Nancy Marouf v. Loretta Lynch

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 6, 2016 · 811 F.3d 174

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9820950

## Case

- **Full name:** Nancy MAROUF; Saed Marouf; Neheda Marouf, Petitioners, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 6, 2016
- **Citations:** 811 F.3d 174; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 58; 2016 WL 66607
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McKEAGUE
- **Judges:** Merritt, McKeague, White
- **Cited by:** 41 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9820950

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “[d]iscretionary denials of asylum to otherwise-eligible applicants” are an abuse of discretion when based on erroneous credibility determinations
- holding that translation errors may undermine an adverse credibility determination when there is more than speculation, i.e., both a “strong indication” of translation errors and “extensive” corroboration
- holding that an IJ cannot “‘cherry pick’ facts or inconsistencies to support an adverse credibility finding that is unsupported by the record as a whole” (quotation marks and citation omitted)

## Opinion text

DAVID W. McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT
I, too, agree that the IJ’s' and Board’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence and that the Maroufs’ petition for review be granted. However, to respect the congressionally-mandated deference to the agency, I express no opinion as to whether the petitioners are eligible for or facially deserving of asylum. The Supreme Court has made clear that, in determining asylum eligibility, the Courts of Appeal are “not generally empowered to conduct a de novo inquiry into the matter being reviewed and to reach its own conclusions based on such an inquiry.” INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 , 123 S.Ct. 353 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (discussing the appropriateness of appellate determinations of asylum eligibility and noting that “the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ward v. Holder, 733 F.3d 601, 609 (6th Cir.2013) (affirming the same). Accordingly, I decline to join sections II.E and II.F of this opinion, as well as any reference, either express of implied, that may be construed as mandating a grant of asylum for the petitioners.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9820950. Public record. Not legal advice.