## Facts

- Berta Lidia Iraheta, a citizen of El Salvador, entered the United States, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) initiated deportation proceedings before an immigration judge (IJ).
- In the deportation proceedings, Iraheta applied for asylum.
- Iraheta testified that, while attending secondary school in El Salvador, she became active in the Revolutionary Secondary Student Movement (MERS), described as a student organization, and the Popular United Action Front (FAPU), described as an anti-government group.
- Iraheta testified that she helped organize meetings and recruited members for MERS and FAPU.
- Iraheta testified that she distributed leaflets for both groups objecting to the killing of innocent civilians and supporting liberty.
- Iraheta testified that the Salvadoran government and armed services persecuted members of MERS and that her friends and acquaintances in the movement were tortured and killed.
- Iraheta testified that her fiancé, who she said was active in MERS, disappeared in February 1980 after the torture and death of his four brothers.
- Iraheta testified that friends told her government members were looking for her at her mother’s house, which caused her to flee El Salvador.
- Iraheta submitted documentary evidence concerning her circumstances and conditions in El Salvador.
- The IJ denied asylum, finding that Iraheta failed to meet her burden of proof.
- The IJ found that Iraheta’s testimony lacked detail and particularity about the political beliefs of MERS and FAPU and about Iraheta’s opposition to the Salvadoran government.
- The IJ found that Iraheta’s testimony conflicted with her affidavit.
- The IJ found that Iraheta was hesitant and unemotional during testimony and treated that demeanor as undermining credibility.
- The IJ did not state whether Iraheta’s testimony, if credited, would satisfy the asylum standard; instead, the IJ concluded her testimony was substantially untrue.
- Iraheta appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), reasserting her asylum claim.

## Issues

1. Whether (as described in public summaries of the case) the IJ properly denied asylum on the ground that Iraheta failed to meet her burden of proof where the IJ found her testimony insufficiently detailed, inconsistent with her affidavit, and not credible in part based on demeanor.
2. Whether (as described in public summaries of the case) the IJ erred by resolving the claim through a broad adverse-credibility conclusion without stating whether the account, if accepted as true, would satisfy the legal standard for asylum.

## Decision

- The BIA issued an unpublished decision dated September 10, 1990, addressing Iraheta’s appeal from the IJ’s denial of asylum in deportation proceedings.
- Publicly available summaries identify the IJ’s stated reasons for denial, including lack of detail, conflicts with an affidavit, and demeanor-based credibility concerns.
- The publicly available materials do not disclose the BIA’s specific disposition (for example, whether the IJ’s denial was affirmed, reversed, or remanded) or the BIA’s detailed reasoning.

## Legal Principles

- An asylum applicant bears the burden to establish eligibility for asylum, commonly framed as a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected ground, including political opinion (actual or imputed).
- An applicant’s testimony may be sufficient to meet the burden of proof if it is found credible and provides specific facts about the applicant’s activities, the feared harm, and why the harm would occur on a protected ground.
- In evaluating credibility, adjudicators may consider consistency within the testimony, consistency with prior written statements (including affidavits), and consistency with other record evidence, including country-conditions evidence.
- Demeanor may be considered in a credibility assessment, but credibility findings are generally expected to be explained with reference to concrete record concerns such as vagueness, omission, or inconsistency.
- When an adjudicator denies relief based on lack of credibility or lack of proof, the decision ordinarily identifies the reasons for disbelief and explains how those reasons mean the applicant did not carry the burden.

## Conclusion

In re Iraheta concerns a Salvadoran asylum applicant who testified to student and anti-government activity in MERS and FAPU and to fear of persecution based on that activity; the IJ denied asylum for failure of proof, citing lack of detail, conflicts with an affidavit, and demeanor-based credibility concerns, and Iraheta appealed to the BIA, which issued an unpublished decision on September 10, 1990, though public summaries do not reveal the Board’s final disposition or full reasoning.


In re Iraheta, BIA Unpublished Dec., File No. A24 247 299 (Sept. 10, 1990)