## Facts

- Jose Doney Argueta, a native and citizen of El Salvador, last entered the United States around September 26, 1982; deportation proceedings began September 28, 1982.
- At his deportation hearing, Argueta conceded deportability but applied for political asylum and withholding of deportation.
- Argueta testified that in December 1979 four men came to his home, accused him of belonging to a guerrilla group, and threatened that if he did not leave the country he would “disappear” because he was the “next one.”
- The next day, Argueta saw the same men seize his close friend (described as his brother-in-law), Jose Abel Figueroa, from Figueroa’s home.
- Argueta stated the men were part of a right-wing “death squad,” identified in part by the vehicles they drove.
- Argueta later found Figueroa’s body and testified that Figueroa had been tortured and killed; Argueta left El Salvador the following day.
- Argueta also submitted newspaper articles and other general evidence concerning violence in El Salvador.
- The Immigration Judge denied asylum and withholding primarily on an adverse credibility finding.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, stating that even if Argueta’s testimony were true, he failed to meet the statutory burdens for asylum and withholding.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the BIA’s denial of asylum and withholding of deportation.
2. Whether the agency permissibly rejected or discounted Argueta’s testimony through an adverse credibility determination grounded in the record.
3. Whether Argueta’s evidence established a well-founded fear of persecution (asylum) and a clear probability of persecution (withholding) if returned to El Salvador.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review and set aside the BIA’s denial.
- The court held the BIA’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.
- The court found the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility analysis was undermined by material factual errors, including mischaracterizing Argueta’s testimony as vague despite specific identification of the source of danger.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court’s opinion.

## Legal Principles

- A BIA denial of asylum or withholding must be upheld only if supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole.
- Adverse credibility determinations must rest on accurate characterizations of material testimony and cannot be sustained when based on significant factual mistakes.
- Asylum requires a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground; withholding of deportation requires a clear probability of persecution.
- Specific, detailed testimony describing targeted threats by an organized killing group, corroborated by closely connected violence, may be sufficient to satisfy the statutory standards absent substantial contrary evidence.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the agency’s denial of asylum and withholding could not stand where it relied on a flawed credibility assessment and where the record evidence of a direct death-squad threat followed by the immediate torture and killing of a close associate made the BIA’s contrary determination unsupported by substantial evidence.


Argueta v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 759 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1985)