Spaska Nacheva v. Jefferson Sessions, 690 F. App'x 544

Background

Petitioners Spaska Nacheva, her husband, and two children are Bulgarian citizens who entered the U.S. on tourist visas in December 2010 and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief in June 2011.
Nacheva alleges she was kidnapped and sexually assaulted on December 4, 2010, and was threatened with her daughter being forced into prostitution; she claims government officials targeted her because they believed she possessed documents implicating high-level officials in corruption.
At the immigration hearing Nacheva testified consistently with her written statements; she said she stopped leaving home after the attack, disclosed the assault only to her husband and psychiatrist, and did not seek medical treatment.
The IJ denied relief based on an adverse credibility determination; the BIA affirmed, citing five primary bases for disbelief: inconsistency about ability to work (an online nanny ad), lack of medical treatment, timing of psychological treatment, demeanor/unresponsiveness, and implausibility tied to timing of the attack and asylum filing.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the BIA/IJ credibility findings for substantial evidence and evaluated whether each proffered basis was permissible under controlling precedent and whether the IJ afforded required opportunities to explain or to provide corroboration.

Issues

Issue	Nacheva's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence	Nacheva argued her testimony and corroborating psychological reports were consistent and she provided reasonable explanations for perceived inconsistencies	Government argued multiple inconsistencies and implausibilities justified adverse credibility	Court: IJ/BIA’s five bases fail—four are impermissible or unsupported; credibility determination not sustained
Whether the online nanny ad impeached Nacheva’s claim she could not work	Nacheva said her daughter posted the ad to get her out of the house; explanation plausible	Government relied on the ad to impeach testimony about inability to work	Court: IJ failed to address Nacheva’s explanation; ad cannot support adverse credibility without rejecting a reasonable explanation
Whether failure to seek medical or timely psychological treatment justified disbelief	Nacheva cited fear, shame, and escalating symptoms leading to later therapy; psychological reports corroborated symptoms	Government argued lack of immediate medical/psychological care undermined the assault claim	Court: Speculation that a rape victim would necessarily seek medical care is improper; IJ also ignored explanations in psychological reports and failed to allow explanation
Whether lack of corroboration (family testimony re: visa intent) could support denial without notice	Nacheva argued IJ never identified needed corroboration or gave chance to produce it	Government relied on absence of family testimony to assess intent and credibility	Court: Because other credibility reasons were rejected, IJ’s reliance on lack of corroboration without Ren notice was error; remand required

Key Cases Cited

Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2014) (high bar to overturn adverse credibility findings)
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (requirement to consider totality of circumstances and avoid cherry-picking)
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ must address and reject reasonable explanations for apparent discrepancies)
Zhu v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (speculation that a rape victim would necessarily seek medical treatment is improper)
Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2009) (IJ must provide opportunity to explain perceived inconsistencies)
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ must give notice and opportunity to produce corroboration when lack of corroboration is relied on)
Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2016) (two-step review when adverse credibility partly rests on lack of corroboration)