Malak Manes v. Jefferson Sessions
875 F.3d 1261
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Malak Manes, an Indian national, sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection based on political persecution for supporting the opposition party INLD.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief after making an adverse credibility finding; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.
- Key evidentiary issues: petitioner’s testimony described stitches to his left hand after a 2009 knife attack, but his submitted doctor’s letter referenced injuries to the left arm/shoulder and stitches to the left arm (no mention of hand).
- Other documentary problems included an INLD letter with a handwritten email edit and a voter roster listing petitioner as a 25-year-old female instead of a 22-year-old male.
- The IJ relied on demeanor observations (nervousness, hand movements, faster/desperate speech on cross) and inconsistencies between testimony and documents to find petitioner not credible.
- The BIA concluded that, given the adverse credibility finding, objective country-conditions evidence alone did not show it was more likely than not petitioner would be tortured if returned (CAT denial).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ’s demeanor findings were sufficiently specific to support adverse credibility | Manes: IJ’s remarks were not precise; should tie observations to transcript moments | Gov: IJ’s firsthand descriptions of nervousness, hand movements, speech tempo are proper credibility cues | Held: Demeanor findings were specific and within IJ’s province; substantial evidence supports them |
| Whether inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence can support adverse credibility | Manes: Documentary discrepancies (e.g., doctor letter) are unreliable and cannot be used against him | Gov: Manes submitted the documents; inconsistencies go to the heart of his claim and may be weighted | Held: Inconsistencies (hand vs. arm, voter roster/gender) are specific, cogent reasons to discredit Manes |
| Whether documentary flaws (INLD letter, roster) undermine claimed INLD membership/support | Manes: Minor errors do not compel disbelief | Gov: Documents are central to claimed basis for persecution; defects are probative | Held: Given relevance to membership/support claim, even minor issues may be given substantial weight |
| Whether country-conditions evidence compels CAT relief despite adverse credibility finding | Manes: BIA failed to properly consider reports showing abuses in India | Gov: BIA considered reports but found objective evidence alone insufficient post-credibility finding | Held: BIA sufficiently considered reports; record does not compel conclusion petitioner more likely than not would be tortured |
Key Cases Cited
- Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency credibility findings are factual and entitled to deference)
- Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (REAL ID Act requires specific, cogent reasons for adverse credibility findings; demeanor examples)
- Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2014) (REAL ID Act: no presumption of credibility; totality of circumstances standard)
- Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2005) (deference to IJ’s firsthand demeanor assessments)
- Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2010) (IJ may reference unrecorded aspects of demeanor as specific examples)
- Paredes-Urrestarazu v. U.S. INS, 36 F.3d 801 (9th Cir. 1994) (transcript need not always capture eye-witness observations supporting demeanor findings)
- Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2008) (State Department reports compel CAT relief only when they show a particularized threat)