Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Hector Fagoaga Ramos, a citizen of El Salvador, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture protection based in part on political persecution and gang attacks. The immigration judge found him not credible, and the BIA adopted portions of that reasoning.
On review, some asserted inconsistencies did not withstand examination of the testimony and record. One meaningful discrepancy remained concerning which gang committed attacks in 2014.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition and remanded. Because the agency’s credibility analysis relied on factors the panel found invalid, the court would not assume that the remaining valid concern alone produced the same result.
The BIA must decide in the first instance whether the supported discrepancy, considered without the improper factors and under the totality of circumstances, is enough to sustain adverse credibility. It must then reconsider asylum, withholding, and torture protection as appropriate.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate courts review the actual reasons the agency gave for disbelieving an applicant.
- When several credibility grounds fail, one surviving inconsistency does not automatically preserve the ruling.
- The BIA ordinarily gets the first opportunity to reweigh remaining valid credibility factors.
- Counsel should separate harmless wording differences from discrepancies that genuinely affect the persecution narrative.
Why It Matters
The disposition illustrates why an adverse credibility finding should be challenged ground by ground. Removing unsupported reasons can require a new agency decision even where the record still contains a significant inconsistency.