Cojocari v. Sessions
863 F.3d 616
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Vladimir Cojocari (Moldovan citizen) and his wife Veronica sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after alleged repeated political beatings, arrests, and harassment in Moldova between 2007–2009; they arrived in the U.S. in November 2009.
- Cojocari presented live testimony, hospital and arrest records, letters from his Moldovan attorney, an AMN membership card, and an expert report/testimony by Professor Igor Kotler on Moldova country conditions.
- The immigration judge found Cojocari not credible (citing numerous perceived inconsistencies and insufficiency of corroboration) and denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed.
- The Seventh Circuit reviewed the BIA decision for substantial-evidence support of the adverse credibility finding and corroboration rulings under the REAL ID Act.
- The court held that many of the alleged inconsistencies were trivial or explainable (e.g., date-memory errors, translation variance, amplified detail in live testimony) and that the IJ improperly discounted documentary corroboration for arbitrary reasons.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated the BIA decision and remanded for a fresh credibility assessment (preferably by a different IJ), directing the agency to fairly consider corroborating documents and country evidence and to allow supplementation of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Cojocari's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by specific, cogent reasons | Credibility attacks rested on trivial, explainable discrepancies; overall narrative and corroboration are reliable | Discrepancies and shifting explanations (dates, university status, hospitalization) undermine credibility | Court: IJ relied on trivial/illusory inconsistencies and arbitrary reasoning; credibility finding was not supported — remand for fresh assessment |
| Whether documentary evidence corroborated Cojocari’s claims | Medical records, arrest records, attorney letters, AMN card corroborate persecution history | Documents are suspect, contradicted by testimony, or insufficiently corroborative | Court: IJ discounted documents for improper reasons; government failed to show forgery; agency must reassess corroboration fairly |
| Proper application of REAL ID Act corroboration and credibility standards | Applicant must be judged on totality; minor inconsistencies should not control; reasonable explanations matter | REAL ID allows consideration of any inconsistency (even peripheral) | Court: REAL ID permits consideration but IJ must distinguish material vs. trivial inconsistencies and consider explanations; IJ failed to do so |
| Role of country-condition evidence and expert testimony | Kotler’s unrebutted expert testimony and State Dept. reports support risk of future persecution/torture | Country reports do not demonstrate likelihood that similarly situated person would be tortured | Court: Kotler and State Dept. reports were credible and unrebutted; IJ gave them short shrift without plausible explanation — agency should reassess and may update record |
Key Cases Cited
- Krishnapillan v. Holder, 563 F.3d 606 (7th Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard for credibility findings)
- Hassan v. Holder, 571 F.3d 631 (7th Cir.) (REAL ID requires distinguishing material vs. trivial inconsistencies)
- Kadia v. Gonzales, 501 F.3d 817 (7th Cir.) (remand required where IJ failed to separate material lies from trivial mistakes)
- Chun Sui Yuan v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 648 (7th Cir.) (live testimony may contain greater detail than written statements; minor discrepancies insufficient for disbelief)
- Silais v. Sessions, 855 F.3d 736 (7th Cir.) (IJ may require corroboration but must consider whether evidence could reasonably be obtained)
- Dong Gao v. BIA, 482 F.3d 122 (2d Cir.) (less deference when credibility rests on analysis of testimony rather than demeanor)