Kueviakoe v. United States Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that no important inconsistency could be found based on word choice when petitioner’s words were translated from French to English
• noting that use of inconsistent terms to describe police vehicle was immaterial, especially where “all of the other pertinent information remained the same”
• rejecting the BIA’s reliance on a “wholly immaterial” inconsistency between the word “car” and “truck” in the petitioner’s testimony
• explaining under the substantial evidence test, a decision “can be reversed only if the evidence ‘compels’ a reasonable fact finder to find oth- erwise” (quotation marks omitted)
• rejecting as neither plausible nor material Board’s finding of inconsistency between petitioner’s use of word “truck” in his application and “car” in his testimony and noting that petitioner’s words had been translated to English on both occasions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).