Soto-Olarte v. Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “inconsistencies cannot serve as substantial evidence for a finding [of adverse credibility] . . . when neither the IJ nor the BIA addressed [the applicant’s] explanation in a reasoned manner”
• holding that BIA must inquire about and consider the respondent’s explanations for inconsistencies
• explaining that remand is the appropriate remedy where an adverse credibility determination rests on apparent inconsistencies that a respondent lacked adequate opportunities to address during his hearing
• holding an adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence “[b]ecause the IJ did not offer [the petitioner] an opportunity to explain the inconsistencies on which she later relied in finding him not credible”
• holding an adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence “[b]ecause the IJ did not offer [the petitioner] an opportunity to explain the inconsistencies on which she later relied in finding him not credible”
• noting that this court may deem an asylum applicant credible if “[i]t is apparent from the record before us that the IJ and BIA have listed all possible reasons to support an adverse credibility determination”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).