Victor Paul v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that torture is “something more severe than the kind of treatment that would suffice to prove persecution”
• holding that where the factual predicate for both the old and new claim relied on the same assertions, the adverse credibility ruling necessarily foreclosed both claims
• holding that an adverse credibility determination can be dispositive of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief if all claims are based on the same factual predicate
• concluding that, “[b]ecause th[e] same factual 16 assertion was needed for either the asylum or the withholding 17 claim, the [adverse] credibility ruling necessarily 18 foreclosed relief in both”
• stating that “withholding of removal . . . may only be requested on the basis of a probability of future persecution”
• holding that petitioner can secure reopening 13 notwithstanding IJ’s prior adverse credibility determination 14 if “factual predicate of . . . claim of future persecution is 15 independent of” testimony found not to be credible (emphasis 16 in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).