Zaruma-Guaman v. Wilkinson, 988 F.3d 1

Petitioner Luis Alfredo Zaruma‑Guaman, an Ecuadorian national, entered the U.S. without documents on November 4, 2014 and was detained and placed in expedited removal.
At an initial Border Patrol interview he swore to tell the truth and denied fear; later he expressed fear and had a credible‑fear interview (Nov. 25, 2014) alleging repeated mistreatment in Ecuador based on indigenous ethnicity, a podiatric condition, and political affiliation.
Record contains a contemporaneous sworn statement report from the initial interview (unsigned by petitioner) and notes from the credible‑fear interview; petitioner also submitted an asylum application and affidavit claiming police corruption prevented reporting abuse.
At merits hearing the petitioner’s testimony conflicted about whether he ever reported abuse to police (denied earlier but later admitted going “two or three times”); no medical or other corroboration was produced.
The IJ made an adverse credibility finding (citing inconsistencies and lack of corroboration) and denied asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief; the BIA affirmed; petitioner sought judicial review.

Issue	Petitioner’s Argument	Respondent’s Argument	Held
Adverse‑credibility determination—was it supported by substantial evidence?	Inconsistencies are minor, innocent mistakes; IJ failed to comment on demeanor; the "heart of the matter" rule should protect him.	Inconsistencies are patent and material; REAL ID Act allows totality approach; demeanor findings not required.	Court: Affirms. Substantial evidence supports IJ/BIA adverse credibility; REAL ID Act governs.
Use of sworn statement and credible‑fear notes — admissibility and weight	Sworn statement unsigned and interview notes non‑verbatim; therefore should be disregarded.	Both are routine agency records admissible and may be relied on; unsigned status affects weight, not admissibility.	Court: Affirms. Agency records are permissible and bear indicia of reliability.
Asylum and withholding of removal — sufficiency of proof of persecution or well‑founded fear	Petitioner claims past persecution and fear of future harm warrant asylum/withholding.	Credibility finding and lack of corroboration mean petitioner failed to meet burden.	Court: Denies asylum; withholding fails because asylum standard unmet.
CAT claim — whether petitioner shown likely torture by or with government acquiescence	Petitioner contends risk of torture if returned.	Record and country reports do not show government‑instigated or acquiesced torture; petitioner offered no developed argument.	Court: Treats CAT claim as abandoned and denies relief.

Rivas‑Mira v. Holder, 556 F.3d 1 (credibility determinations are findings of fact reviewed for substantial evidence)
Segran v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 1 (adverse credibility determinations may doom asylum claims)
Chhay v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 1 (review standard: reverse only if record compels contrary finding)
Rivera‑Coca v. Lynch, 844 F.3d 374 (asylum requires past persecution or well‑founded fear)
Jianli Chen v. Holder, 703 F.3d 17 (strict evidence rules do not apply in immigration proceedings; demeanor findings helpful but not required)
Martinez v. Holder, 734 F.3d 105 (unsigned interview report can be reliable evidence)
Jiao Hua Huang v. Holder, 620 F.3d 33 (agency interview notes admissible if compiled in ordinary course and likely accurate)
Ly v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 126 (discussing role of demeanor versus testimonial inconsistencies)