Tatiana Pavlova 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.

• concluding that the IJ erred in questioning an 18 applicant’s credibility based on her failure to provide 19 specific details in the general description of her claim 20 provided in her application
• holding that term “persecution” in Refugee Act encompasses only harm inflicted “either by the government of a country or by persons or an organization that the government was unable or unwilling to control”
• holding that IJ used flawed reasoning in finding implausible a Russian Baptist petitioner’s claim that she waited until the murder of a fourth fellow Baptist to apply for asylum, rather than applying after the first three had been murdered
• cautioning that “asylum applicants are not required to list every incident of persecution on their I-589 statements”
• noting that although direct governmental action is not required for a persecution claim, private acts constitute persecution only if “the government has proven unwilling to control such actions”
• noting that notwithstanding the deference given to credibility determinations, “we will vacate the IJ’s decision if he has not applied the law correctly or supported his findings with record evidence”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).