Adverse Credibility and Denial of Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Relief: Admission of Embellishments as Specific and Cogent Reason

Introduction

Oscar Alberto Donaire-Jarquin, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Joined by two derivative beneficiaries—Illka Jasmin Zavala-Salgado and Santiago Alejandro Donaire-Zavala—he alleged that he faced persecution at the hands of pro-Ortega paramilitary death squads because of his participation in peaceful protests. After an immigration judge (IJ) found his testimony not credible and the BIA affirmed, Donaire-Jarquin appealed to the Eleventh Circuit. The key issues were whether (1) his inconsistent testimony and admission of embellishment justified an adverse credibility finding; (2) that finding alone could support denial of all three forms of relief; and (3) substantial evidence existed to uphold the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions.

Summary of the Judgment

The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition for review. Applying the “substantial evidence” standard, the court held that the IJ and BIA had specific and cogent reasons to discredit Donaire-Jarquin’s testimony, most notably his admission that he embellished the story of mortars and gunfire to make his claim “more convincing.” Because his testimony was the linchpin of his case and his corroborating evidence was inconsistent or contradictory, the court concluded that an adverse credibility determination alone sufficed to deny asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Chen v. U.S. Attorney General, 463 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2006): Held that an applicant’s credible testimony, if sufficiently detailed and internally consistent, may alone establish eligibility for asylum. Here, the court reaffirmed that the converse is also true: an adverse credibility finding can alone justify denial when an applicant’s testimony is the primary evidence.
• Forgue v. U.S. Attorney General, 401 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2005): Established that an IJ must consider all evidence, even after an adverse credibility finding, and that if no independent corroboration exists, denial of relief is appropriate. The court cited Forgue to support the proposition that an adverse credibility finding alone can suffice to deny relief when corroboration is lacking.
• Kazemzadeh v. U.S. Attorney General, 577 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2009): Clarified that when the BIA adopts the IJ’s reasoning, both decisions are reviewed together under the “substantial evidence” standard. The court applied this consolidated review here.
• Zheng v. U.S. Attorney General, 451 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2006) & Sepulveda v. U.S. Attorney General, 401 F.3d 1226 (11th Cir. 2005): Defined “persecution” as requiring more than isolated incidents; the court referenced these cases to outline the legal standards for harm rising to persecution under asylum law.
• Sanchez-Castro v. U.S. Attorney General, 998 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2021): Emphasized that the “more likely than not” standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum, reinforcing that failure to meet the asylum standard precludes withholding relief.

Legal Reasoning

1. Standards of Proof
• Asylum: Requires persecution in the past or a well-founded future fear based on a protected ground (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group).
• Withholding of Removal: Requires showing a “more likely than not” chance of persecution upon return—a higher threshold than asylum.
• CAT Relief: Requires proving it is “more likely than not” that the applicant will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of state actors.

2. Credibility Determination
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), an IJ may base an adverse credibility finding on inconsistencies between testimony and record evidence, the applicant’s demeanor, and lack of candor. Here, the IJ pinpointed three chief inconsistencies:

• The press article mentioned a filed police report, but petitioner admitted no report was filed.
• The article was silent on gunfire or mortars, while petitioner testified to a two-hour bombardment.
• The photographs in the article showed no physical damage consistent with mortar fire.

The petitioner ultimately conceded he had fabricated the mortar-attack portion to bolster his claim—an unequivocal admission of falsehood.

3. Substantial Evidence
The Eleventh Circuit reviews factual and credibility findings under the “substantial evidence” standard. Because the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the agency, contained specific and cogent reasons supporting the IJ’s adverse credibility determination—and the petitioner’s own admission of embellishment—the court found no basis for reversal.

Impact

This decision underscores the decisive role of credibility in asylum and related proceedings. Key takeaways for practitioners:

• An applicant’s admission of fabrication is a powerful, specific reason justifying an adverse credibility finding.
• Even where corroborating evidence exists, inconsistencies between that evidence and testimony can independently support denial.
• Failure to file basic, contemporaneous reports (police, human-rights organizations, press) may severely undermine credibility if the applicant’s narrative implies such reports should exist.
• Future petitioners must ensure that their testimony aligns closely with documentary evidence to avoid credibility pitfalls.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Asylum: Protection granted to non-citizens who can show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
• Withholding of Removal: A form of relief requiring proof that return to one’s country would more likely than not result in persecution on a protected ground.
• Convention Against Torture (CAT) Relief: Requires proof that torture is more probable than not if the applicant is returned, and that state actors would be involved or would acquiesce.
• “Well-Founded Fear” vs. “More Likely Than Not”: Asylum’s lower threshold hinges on a reasonable possibility of future harm; withholding/CAT’s higher threshold demands a probability exceeding 50%.
• Adverse Credibility Determination: A finding that an applicant’s testimony is not believable, based on inconsistencies, omissions, demeanor, or other factors.
• Substantial Evidence Standard: A deferential review requiring that the agency’s decision be supported by “reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence” in the record.

Conclusion

Oscar Alberto Donaire-Jarquin v. U.S. Attorney General reaffirms that credibility is the keystone of asylum, withholding, and CAT proceedings. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision illustrates that an applicant’s admission of embellishment provides a specific and cogent basis for an adverse credibility determination. When such a determination stands unrebutted by consistent, corroborating evidence, it alone can justify the denial of all relief sought. This case serves as a cautionary precedent: consistency between testimony and documentary proof is indispensable, and any admission of falsehood may be fatal to an applicant’s claim.