Pankaj Karan Singh Kataria 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 Board did not make an adverse credibility finding when it “merely noted questions about [the petitioner’s] claim and concluded that [the petitioner] failed to meet his burden of establishing asylum eligibility”
• stating that corroborative evidence is not required from an asylum applicant whose testimony is unrefuted
• finding that a State Department Profile which, inter alia, described the level of violence in the country of origin as “only ‘lower,’ ” was not enough to rebut the presumption of a well-founded fear
• treating the petitioner’s testi- mony as true and credible after reversing adverse credibility determination
• “Although a reasonable factfinder could have found this incident sufficient to establish past persecution, we do not believe that a factfinder would be compelled to do so.”
• “In the absence of an explicit adverse credibility finding, we must assume that Kataria’s factual contentions are true.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).