Gerakl Pavlovich Chakhov v. Loretta E. Lynch, 837 F.3d 843

Gerakl Pavlovich Chakhov, a Russian national of Greek/Russian descent born in Georgia, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection after entering the U.S. in 2007, claiming past persecution by skinheads and police in Georgia and Russia because of his non-Slavic appearance.
Asylum officer found Chakhov ineligible in 2008 due to material inconsistencies between his I-589 and interview; DHS initiated removal and Chakhov conceded removability but pursued relief.
At immigration hearings Chakhov amended his application, added incidents of past attacks (spanning 1982, 1988, 1990, 1998), and submitted a supplemental affidavit and a Russian medical report documenting hospitalization in 1990.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Chakhov not credible based on inconsistencies/omissions across his statements, and insufficient corroboration for his claims; the Board affirmed, concluding the IJ independently weighed the totality of evidence.
The Eighth Circuit granted a remand on a government motion about the IJ’s use of the asylum officer’s credibility finding; on remand the Board again dismissed the appeal and the court denied Chakhov’s petition for review.

Issue	Chakhov's Argument	Government/Board/IJ Argument	Held
Adverse credibility determination	IJ improperly relied on asylum officer and should not have found him not credible based on evolving testimony	IJ made an independent, de novo credibility finding considering all statements and demeanor; inconsistencies were material	Court upheld adverse credibility finding as supported by specific, cogent reasons and substantial evidence
Use of asylum officer’s findings	IJ merely repeated asylum officer’s conclusions without independent review	IJ appropriately considered asylum officer statements but conducted independent review of record and testimony	Court found IJ did not simply adopt asylum officer’s view and Board correctly affirmed
Requirement for corroboration	It was unreasonable to expect corroboration or IJ failed to accept his explanations for lack of records	Medical report insufficiently detailed; explanations for unavailable police records were inadequate; corroboration reasonably expected	Court upheld IJ’s finding that corroboration was lacking and the explanation for absence was insufficient
Effect on withholding/CAT claims	Separate standards mean these claims might still succeed	Withholding/CAT claims rested on the same discredited testimony	Court held withholding and CAT relief fail because they rely on the same discredited testimony

Osonowo v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 922 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review — substantial evidence for BIA credibility determinations)
Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2008) (review of BIA and adopted IJ findings)
Fofanah v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2006) (weight accorded to IJ credibility findings)
Singh v. Gonzales, 495 F.3d 553 (8th Cir. 2007) (credibility must be convincing enough to preclude contrary conclusion)
Khrystotodorov v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2008) (requirements when denying asylum for lack of corroboration)
Ntangsi v. Holder, 554 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 2009) (inconsistencies relating to persecution go to the heart of the claim)
Tebyasa v. Holder, 593 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2010) (upholding adverse credibility based on numerous inconsistencies)
Liu v. Holder, 575 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussion of when lack of corroboration warrants remand)
Singh v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 2015) (discredited testimony defeats related withholding/CAT claims)