## Facts

- A-S-, a native and citizen of Bangladesh, entered the United States on September 2, 1994 without valid documentation.
- He filed an asylum application and later submitted a second asylum application after deportation proceedings began.
- He claimed political persecution based on involvement with the Jatiyo Party, including serving as an organizing secretary in his sub-district and alleged targeting after the party lost power in 1991.
- He alleged opponents sought him at home, physically assaulted him, and harassed his family.
- The Immigration Judge found his testimony not credible due to inconsistencies and omissions between his applications and testimony concerning core events and dates, and due to demeanor described as halting, hesitant, and vague.
- The Immigration Judge found him deportable, denied asylum and withholding of deportation, and granted voluntary departure.

## Issues

1. Under the Board’s de novo review authority, what level of deference is owed to an Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility findings, particularly those based on inconsistencies, omissions, and demeanor?
2. Given the credibility determination and record evidence, did the respondent satisfy his burden to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of deportation based on political opinion?

## Decision

- The Board, sitting en banc, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding of deportation.
- The Board accorded deference to the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination.
- The Board concluded that the identified inconsistencies and omissions concerned events central to the claim, were actually present in the record, and were not convincingly explained.
- The Board gave substantial weight to the Immigration Judge’s demeanor-based inferences, recognizing the Immigration Judge’s superior position to observe testimony.
- With the respondent’s testimony deemed not credible and without sufficient reliable evidence to meet the burden of proof, the respondent failed to establish eligibility for relief; voluntary departure remained in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Although the Board reviews appeals de novo, it accords deference to an Immigration Judge’s credibility and credibility-related findings.
- The Board will defer to an adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies or omissions about central events when (1) the discrepancies are actually present, (2) they provide specific and cogent reasons to doubt credibility, and (3) the applicant does not provide a convincing explanation.
- Demeanor-based credibility determinations generally receive a high degree of deference when the Immigration Judge draws reasonable adverse inferences supported by specific and cogent reasons tied to the substance of the testimony.
- An applicant for asylum or withholding bears the burden of proof; when testimony is found not credible, relief may be denied absent sufficient corroborating or otherwise reliable evidence establishing past persecution or a qualifying fear of future persecution on a protected ground.

## Conclusion

The Board upheld the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding—grounded in central inconsistencies, omissions, and demeanor—and, because the respondent failed to carry his burden of proof with credible or otherwise sufficient evidence, affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding of deportation while leaving voluntary departure undisturbed.


Matter of A-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1106 (B.I.A. 1998)