Zamanov v. Holder
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8886
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Zamanov, Azerbaijani citizen and native of the Soviet Union, entered the U.S. in 2004 without valid documents and faced removal proceedings.
- He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture based on alleged political persecution in Azerbaijan.
- The asylum officer found him not credible in material respects, noting inconsistencies between his I-589 and later statements.
- Zamanov submitted a supplemental declaration (July 22, 2005) describing three additional alleged persecutions (1996 arrest, 2003 polling watcher incident, 2003 protest) not in the original application.
- The IJ concluded he was not credible, focusing on omissions and a perceived shift in the account after the asylum interview.
- The BIA adopted the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, and the Ninth Circuit reviews under substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence | Zamanov argues the later, more detailed incidents clarify rather than alter his claim. | Holder contends the supplemental incidents materially altered the account, undermining credibility. | Yes; substantial evidence supports material alteration and credibility doubt. |
| Whether the added incidents went to the heart of the claim | Additional events relate to fear but are not central to persecution claims. | Added incidents are central acts of political protest and core to his fear. | Yes; these incidents go to the heart of the claim and support the adverse finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1999) (adverse credibility reviewed under substantial evidence)
- Elias-Zacarias v. INS, 502 U.S. 478 (1992) (standard for credibility review)
- Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 2003) (reasoning must bear nexus to credibility finding)
- Ceballos-Castillo v. INS, 904 F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1990) (material alterations support adverse credibility)
- Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2001) (details going to the heart of the claim)
- Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2007) (testimony about events leading to departure matters)
- Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336 (9th Cir. 1994) (court requires specific, cogent explanations for credibility determinations)
- Smolniakova v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2005) (lack of detail in initial application not always fatal to credibility)
- Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2000) (candidness and omissions evaluated in credibility findings)
- Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2005) (minor inconsistencies do not always establish fear-based credibility issues)