holding that “[d]iscretionary denials of asylum to otherwise-eligible applicants” are an abuse of discretion when based on erroneous credibility determinations
How later courts described this case
- 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)
- cataloging a handful of cases in which “egregious conduct” justified the “unusual” outcome of a discretionary denial of asylum (citations omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the judgment.
CONCURRING IN THE JUDGMENT
I agree that the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility determinations are not supported by substantial evidence and that the petition should be granted and the case remanded. To the extent the opinion can be understood to mandate the grant of relief on remand, I do not agree and would require only that the proceedings on re *192 mand be consistent with the remainder of the majority opinion. Further, I would not address the matters discussed in section II.F.