Ibrahim Iman v. William Barr
972 F.3d 1058
| 9th Cir. | 2020Background
- Petitioner Ibrahim Iman, a Somali national and member of the Madhiban minority clan, alleged he and his family were enslaved and forced to work by members of the majority Habr Gedir clan for over two years; he was beaten and his brother was killed.
- Iman fled Somalia in 2004, lived in Kenya for ~12 years, then entered the U.S., conceded removability, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
- At the merits hearing the IJ found Iman not credible, citing (1) testimony the IJ characterized as nonresponsive or lacking detail, (2) implausibility about overhearing his brother’s killing at a distance, and (3) omission from his asylum application of statements he previously made in a credible-fear interview (specifically, that his sisters had been raped). The IJ denied relief on credibility and alternative merits grounds.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, emphasizing the omission regarding the sisters’ rapes and the IJ’s view that testimony was lacking detail.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the agency’s adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence, concluded the agency failed to identify record instances of unresponsiveness or particularized omissions undermining credibility, held the omission about the sisters’ rapes was collateral and not probative of fabrication, reversed the adverse credibility finding, granted the petition, and remanded to the BIA to reconsider eligibility assuming Iman’s testimony is credible.
Issues
| Issue | Iman’s Argument | Barr’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports adverse credibility based on testimony being nonresponsive or undetailed | Iman: his testimony was responsive and sufficiently detailed; agency did not cite specific unresponsive instances | Government: testimony repeated underlying claims without detail, showing lack of candor | Court: Reversed — agency failed to identify specific record instances; transcript shows responsive answers |
| Whether omission of sisters’ rapes from asylum application supports adverse credibility | Iman: omission was collateral (harm to third parties), previously disclosed at credible-fear interview, and supplemented rather than contradicted his claim | Government: omission is an inconsistency indicating lack of candor | Court: Reversed — omission was not contradictory, concerned third-party harm, and did not suggest fabrication under totality of circumstances |
| Whether agency properly relied on IJ’s plausibility doubts (e.g., overhearing killing at distance; petitioner’s age) | Iman: plausibility critiques were speculative and not identified by BIA as dispositive | Government: plausibility concerns support disbelief | Court: Rejected as a basis the BIA relied upon; BIA did not treat these points as "most significant" and record does not compel disbelief |
| Remedy and scope on remand (including CAT claim) | Iman: requested remand for asylum, withholding, and CAT if found credible | Government: argued waiver of CAT challenge | Court: Remanded all claims for consideration in light of credibility ruling; rejected waiver argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (review both BIA reasons and IJ reasoning adopted by BIA)
- Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2014) (omissions are generally less probative; agency may not cherry-pick evidence)
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency must give specific and cogent reasons for adverse credibility findings)
- Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2016) (omissions that materially alter a claim can support disbelief; distinguish supplemental omissions)
- Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2011) (late-added incidents that greatly strengthen a claim can justify adverse credibility findings)
- Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2014) (only extraordinary circumstances justify overturning adverse credibility)
- Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2014) (REAL ID Act permits credibility findings based on totality of circumstances)
- Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2019) (factual findings, including credibility, reviewed for substantial evidence)