Material Omissions and Internal Relocation Standards in Asylum and CAT Adjudications

Introduction

Hernandez-Hernandez v. Bondi is a Second Circuit summary order issued on April 29, 2025. Petitioners Milton Daniel Hernandez-Hernandez, his wife Ligia Mariela Moposita-Yanchatuna, and their minor son, nationals of Ecuador, challenged a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The petitioners alleged that criminal actors targeted them because of their indigenous ethnicity, subjecting them to assault, property damage, threats, and an attempted kidnapping. The IJ found the father's testimony not credible due to material omissions and inconsistencies, and concluded that the family could internally relocate within Ecuador to avoid torture. The BIA affirmed, and the Second Circuit denied the petition for review, upholding the adverse credibility determination and rejecting the CAT claim on the ground of unchallenged internal relocation findings.

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit reviewed the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA under the substantial evidence standard. It held:

The IJ properly found petitioner’s written and oral accounts materially inconsistent because he omitted any nexus between the attacks and his indigenous status in his written statement and initial testimony, only raising the ethnic motive when pressed at the end of the hearing.
The father’s account of timing—a rock thrown through a window with a death threat—varied between testimony and his written amendment, and his proffered explanation (stress‐induced confusion) did not compel reversal.
Given the omissions, inconsistencies, and lack of corroborating evidence, the agency’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence, foreclosing asylum and withholding of removal relief.
The CAT claim failed because petitioner did not challenge the IJ’s finding that he could reasonably relocate to a safe region of Ecuador, thereby conceding a key element of CAT relief.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) – authorizes credibility findings based on consistency between written and oral statements, internal consistency, and consistency with other record evidence.
Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2008) – affirms deference to an IJ’s credibility findings unless no reasonable adjudicator could make them.
Hong Fei Gao v. Sessions, 891 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2018) – discusses relative probative value of omissions versus direct contradictions and materiality of omitted facts.
Biao Yang v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2007) – upholds consideration of failure to corroborate testimony as bearing on credibility.
Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) – emphasizes that a petitioner must show a reasonable fact‐finder would be compelled to credit his testimony.
Singh v. Garland, 6 F.4th 418 (2d Cir. 2021) – holds that serious inconsistencies go to the heart of an asylum claim and may substantially undermine credibility.
CAT regulations (8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2) & 1208.16(c)(3)(ii)) – require a “more likely than not” showing of torture and consider internal relocation as part of that analysis.

Legal Reasoning

1. Adverse Credibility Determination: The court applied the totality‐of‐circumstances test under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). It held that omissions are probative when a witness would have reasonably disclosed key facts—here, the ethnic motive underpinning the persecution claim. The IJ’s reliance on both the omission of the nexus element and a direct date discrepancy in petitioner’s amended statement was supported by substantial evidence, particularly given the petitioner’s opportunity to correct and elaborate during multiple statement cycles. His proffered explanations did not compel a contrary finding, and the lack of documentary or testimonial corroboration further buttressed the credibility ruling.

2. CAT Relief and Internal Relocation: Under CAT regulations, an applicant who can safely relocate within his home country cannot show a likelihood of torture. The IJ found, and the BIA agreed, that petitioners could move to a different region of Ecuador. The Second Circuit deemed this finding dispositive for CAT relief, noting that petitioners failed to challenge it on review, thus abandoning the claim.

Impact

This decision reinforces critical principles for asylum seekers:

Material Omissions Are Fatal: Applicants must thoroughly explain how each incident of harm relates to a protected ground from the outset, in both written and oral statements.
Consistency Requirements: Minor discrepancies can accumulate to support an adverse credibility finding, especially when key elements like motive or timing are at stake.
Corroboration Matters: Documentary evidence or third‐party testimony may rehabilitate credibility if credible and material evidence is lacking.
Internal Relocation in CAT Claims: Claimants must proactively contest and disprove safe‐relocation findings or risk automatic denial of CAT protection.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Adverse Credibility Determination: When an immigration judge decides that an applicant’s statements are not believable based on inconsistencies, omissions, or lack of corroboration.
Material Omission: An important detail that an applicant should reasonably include but leaves out, especially when it speaks directly to why they fear persecution.
Internal Relocation: The idea that if an applicant can safely move to another part of their country, they are not entitled to CAT protection because the danger can be avoided without leaving.

Conclusion

Hernandez-Hernandez v. Bondi clarifies that asylum applicants must present consistent, complete accounts linking each incident of harm to a protected ground from the first written statement through testimony. Material omissions and unaddressed inconsistencies, if supported by substantial evidence, justify adverse credibility findings that are fatal to asylum and withholding of removal claims. Moreover, for CAT protection, claimants must overcome any safe‐relocation findings or forfeit relief. This summary order thus serves as a cautionary guide: precision and thoroughness in both factual narratives and legal challenges are essential to prevail in immigration adjudications.