John Doe v. Heil

How courts have described this case

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

• describing the “more likely than not” stan- dard for withholding of removal as “a higher bar than the ‘well-founded fear’ standard for asylum” (cleaned up)
• describing the “more likely than not” standard for withholding of removal as “a higher bar than the ‘well-founded fear’ standard for asylum”
• denying petition for review where BIA relied on “numerous inconsistencies between [petitioner]’s testimony, asylum application, and proffered affidavits”
• upholding an adverse credibility ruling where the BIA identified “specific inconsistencies” and “crucial omissions” in the petitioner’s testimony
• requiring “full and fair consideration” but not “an exegesis on every contention” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
• affirming BIA’s denial of CAT relief where the “application for protection under CAT [was] premised on the same factual situation as [the] application for asylum” and applicant was deemed not credible

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).