## Facts

- Abdelhafid Zarouite, a Moroccan citizen of Sahrawi descent, lived in Casablanca until 1996.
- He testified that Moroccan authorities forced him and his parents to relocate to Western Sahara, allegedly to increase support for Morocco in a planned referendum on the territory’s status.
- He alleged persecution by the Polisario Front in Western Sahara, including beatings and attacks intended to drive him out.
- He testified that he returned to Casablanca in 1999, where Moroccan authorities imprisoned him and told him he could either return to Western Sahara or remain jailed.
- After returning to Western Sahara, he claimed further harassment by the Polisario Front.
- In 2000, he left Western Sahara, entered the United States from Canada without inspection or valid entry documents, and was apprehended.
- In removal proceedings, he conceded removability and applied for asylum and withholding of removal based on past persecution and fear of future persecution.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination.
2. If the credibility determination was not adequately supported, whether the denial of asylum and withholding could be affirmed without remand.

## Decision

- The First Circuit granted the petition for review and remanded to the agency.
- The court held that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding relied on asserted “implausibilities” that were not actually implausible or were insufficient to justify rejecting the testimony outright.
- Because the IJ denied relief solely on credibility grounds and did not make alternative merits findings assuming credibility, the court remanded for further agency proceedings rather than ordering relief.

## Legal Principles

- When the BIA summarily affirms, the court of appeals reviews the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination.
- Adverse credibility determinations are reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard, but they must rest on specific, cogent reasons grounded in the record.
- An IJ may assess inherent plausibility, but may not base disbelief on personal conjecture or unsupported assumptions about foreign actors or events.
- Minor discrepancies or narrative awkwardness generally do not justify wholesale rejection of testimony absent material contradictions going to the core of the claim.
- If an adverse credibility ruling is set aside and the agency has not made alternative findings on persecution, nexus to a protected ground, or other eligibility elements, remand is ordinarily required for the agency to decide those matters in the first instance.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit vacated a credibility-based denial of asylum and withholding because the IJ’s stated implausibility rationales were not adequately supported by the record, and it remanded for the agency to reassess credibility and, if appropriate, address the merits of eligibility for relief.


Zarouite v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2005)