## Facts

- Pedro Flores Torres, a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States without inspection in October 2003.
- He applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture, alleging abuse in the Honduran army tied to his family’s status, including older brothers who had deserted the military.
- In December 2004, the government charged him as removable as an inadmitted alien under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
- After hearings in April and May 2006, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied asylum, withholding, and CAT relief, granted voluntary departure, and made an adverse credibility finding.
- The IJ cited inconsistencies and omissions between Torres’s written application and testimony and concluded Torres failed to show a nexus between harm and a protected ground.
- The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirmed without opinion, making the IJ’s decision the operative agency decision on judicial review.

## Issues

1. Whether the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial evidence.
2. Whether the IJ’s conduct during the hearings, including reliance on speculation and extra-record personal knowledge, tainted fact-finding and deprived Torres of a fair hearing.

## Decision

- The court granted the petition for review.
- The court vacated the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions.
- The court remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence because it was infected by the IJ’s improper conduct and extra-record reasoning.
- The court did not order asylum or other relief; it required reconsideration under a procedurally fair, record-based evaluation.

## Legal Principles

- When the BIA summarily affirms without opinion, the reviewing court evaluates the IJ’s decision as the final agency reasoning.
- An adverse credibility finding must be supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record as a whole; speculation is not substantial evidence.
- An immigration judge must act as a neutral adjudicator; excessive intervention, impatience, and improper questioning can compromise the reliability of credibility determinations.
- Agency fact-finding must rest on the evidentiary record; reliance on an adjudicator’s personal knowledge or extra-record assumptions is improper and may require vacatur and remand.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit vacated the removal order because the IJ’s extra-record assumptions and hearing conduct undermined the integrity of the credibility assessment, requiring remand for a new, record-based evaluation of Torres’s requested relief.


Torres v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2008)