Sherpa v. Sessions
684 F. App'x 41
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Pasang Donga Sherpa, a Nepali national, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief, alleging persecution by Maoists due to membership in the Nepali Congress Party.
- An Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief on credibility grounds; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed. Sherpa petitioned for review in the Second Circuit.
- Key disputed facts included whether Sherpa burned an initial threatening letter (she testified she did but submitted the letter), inconsistencies about her father's death certificate, and contradictory accounts of an attack on her husband.
- The IJ discounted Sherpa’s explanations for inconsistencies and found corroborating evidence inadequate to rehabilitate credibility.
- The adverse credibility finding was dispositive because asylum, withholding, and CAT claims depended on the same factual predicate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported | Sherpa argued inconsistencies were explainable (nervousness, translation/clerical errors) and corroboration sufficed | Government argued the record contained material inconsistencies and weak corroboration justifying disbelief | Court held substantial evidence supports IJ/BIA adverse credibility finding |
| Use of non–heart-of-the-claim inconsistencies | Sherpa argued agency improperly relied on peripheral errors (e.g., translation) | Government relied on totality of circumstances per statute to justify credibility assessment | Court upheld that agency may consider inconsistencies without regard to whether they go to the heart of the claim |
| Sufficiency of corroborating evidence | Sherpa argued documentary evidence (letters, death certificates) rehabilitated her testimony | Government argued documents contained inconsistencies and did not cure credibility defects | Court found corroboration insufficient to overcome adverse credibility finding |
| Consequence for withholding and CAT claims | Sherpa argued even if asylum denied, other relief still warranted | Government argued all claims rest on same facts and fail if credibility fails | Court held denial of asylum disposes of withholding and CAT because claims share same factual predicate |
Key Cases Cited
- Yan Chen v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing BIA and IJ decisions)
- Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) (deference to IJ credibility findings; review standard)
- Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (petitioner must do more than offer a plausible explanation for inconsistencies)
- Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) (corroboration standards in asylum cases)
- Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2007) (corroboration and credibility principles)
- Paul v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 2006) (denial of asylum credibility finding can be dispositive of withholding and CAT relief)