Ememe v. Ashcroft

US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit

2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2312

The Petitioner, a native of Ethiopia, sought review of an immigration judge’s order denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal.  The petitioner claimed that she was raped and tortured during an imprisonment in Ethiopia.  Her imprisonment was based upon her ethnicity.  Her mother, father and brother were killed by the same group that arrested her.  The petitioner was able to flee to Italy, where she worked as a house servant for seven years before traveling to the United States.

Upon arrival in the United States, the INS officers interviewed her with the aid of an Italian translator.  The officers were unable to obtain an interpreter who spoke the petitioner’s native language of Amharic.  When she appeared before the immigration judge, she explained that she was unable to fully explain herself in Italian because it was much easier to express her feelings in her native language. 

The immigration judge rejected her testimony because he found that it was not supported by corroborating evidence and because it was inconsistent with the information that she had given at her credible fear interview, which was conducted with the Italian translator.  However, her testimony before the IJ was aided by a translator of Amharic.  The IJ did not consider the petitioner’s ability to comprehend the questions posed at the credible fear interview.  The BIA affirmed without opinion.

The Court determined that the petitioner’s Italian language skills were crucial to the disposition of her claims.  The Court reviewed the testimony that was offered to determine that there were important matters skipped in the interview.  When the petitioner responded in an unclear fashion, the interviewer simply moved on to the next question without attempting to clarify the statement.  The Court held that absent an evaluation of the petitioner’s language skills, the testimonial inconsistencies alone did not provide adequate support for the immigration judge’s conclusion that Ememe’s testimony was not credible.  The matter was remanded for a determination of the petitioner’s ability to accurately communicate in Italian at her credible fear interview.

*****

Rai v. Ashcroft

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 2982

Hakumat Singh Rai, a Sikh from the Punjab region of India, petitioned for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals which affirmed the IJ's decision to deny his application for asylum.

The Appellant’s asylum claim rests on his assertion that he was a victim of past persecution in India on account of his religion and political opinion.  The IJ did not make a specific finding that the Petitioner was not a credible witness, and the BIA summarily affirmed the IJ without opinion. 

The Ninth Circuit held that as a result of either the IJ or BIA’s failure to make an express finding regarding the Appellant’s credibility, which was a determinative issue in the denial of his application for asylum, the case must be remanded to the IJ to make an express credibility determination.