Palmo v. Lynch
665 F. App'x 112
2d Cir.2016Background
- Petitioner Tashi Palmo, a Nepalese national and member of the Tibetan Youth Congress, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief after alleging multiple arrests and persecution in Nepal.
- An IJ denied relief on credibility grounds; the BIA affirmed in part and the Second Circuit reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA.
- Key adverse findings: omissions in a letter from the Tibetan Youth Congress and omissions in a letter from Palmo’s parents that failed to mention arrests, bribes, and other supporting details.
- The IJ also found Palmo’s courtroom demeanor to be rehearsed and memorized, and that she gave evasive answers to simple questions.
- The agency concluded the inconsistencies, omissions, and demeanor, taken together, undermined Palmo’s credibility; because all relief depended on her factual account, denial of asylum controlled denial of withholding and CAT relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency reasonably made an adverse credibility determination | Palmo argued omissions in corroborating letters and perceived demeanor did not negate her testimony — letters omitted details because authors didn’t understand what to include | Government argued omissions and demeanor were probative inconsistencies/omissions supporting adverse credibility under the REAL ID Act | Court held the agency reasonably found Palmo not credible based on omissions and demeanor; adverse credibility upheld |
| Whether omissions in third‑party letters can support adverse credibility | Palmo: third‑party letters were intended only to show affiliation, not arrests/bribes | Government: omissions were unexplained gaps that weighed against credibility | Court: omissions are equivalent to inconsistencies and may support an adverse credibility finding; agency need not credit plaintiff’s explanations |
| Whether demeanor findings deserve deference | Palmo: demeanor observations were subjective and insufficient to overturn testimony | Government: IJ observed rehearsed, memorized testimony and evasive responses | Court: gave particular deference to IJ’s demeanor assessment and found record support for it |
| Whether adverse credibility precludes all forms of relief | Palmo: even if some testimony doubtful, other evidence could support withholding/CAT relief | Government: all relief hinged on the same factual predicate — the applicant’s account | Court: because all relief relied on the same factual narrative, adverse credibility disposed of asylum, withholding, and CAT relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Xue Hong Yang v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 426 F.3d 520 (2d Cir.) (standard for reviewing IJ decisions as modified by BIA)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir.) (REAL ID Act permits adverse credibility findings based on demeanor, plausibility, and inconsistencies)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (agency need not accept explanations for inconsistencies/omissions)
- Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir.) (corroboration and omissions are relevant to credibility)
- Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 453 F.3d 99 (2d Cir.) (deference to IJ demeanor findings supported by record)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir.) (adverse credibility ruling can be dispositive of all relief when claims share factual predicate)