Aravinthan Balasubramanrim v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the interview “in this case” was not sufficiently reliable to support finding that alien was not credible
• holding that inconsistencies between an applicant’s initial statements upon his arrival and his testimony is not sufficient by itself to support an adverse credibility finding
• holding that inconsistencies between an applicant’s initial statements upon his arrival and his testimony is not sufficient by itself to support an adverse credibility finding
• observing that BIA’s de novo review allows it to “independently assess [the IJ’s] 20 determination and make de novo findings”
• explaining that some inconsistencies between the airport statement and a petitioner’s testimony before the immigration judge are “not sufficient, standing alone,” to support an adverse credibility finding
• noting that discrepancies between answers to initial interview questions and later testimony could not support adverse credibility determination when alien could not understand interpreter at initial interview

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).