The Ninth Circuit has clarified when an immigration judge may use similarities between declarations in unrelated asylum applications to support an adverse credibility determination. The Court found that similar narratives about non-unique events are not sufficient to warrant an adverse credibility finding. “Here, the IJ did not rely on any similarities in language, grammar, or narrative structure between Singh’s affidavit and any of the twenty redacted declarations submitted by the government below. As the government concedes, Singh’s affidavit substantially differs in its use of language, wording, and structure to describe the events in question. Instead, the IJ’s ‘principal concern’ was the alleged factual similarities between Singh’s testimony and that of the RKK Declarations.” “ Relying exclusively on broad factual similarities to trigger credibility suspicion runs counter to the special caution required under Matter of R-K-K- and its express focus on finding striking similarities in the language, grammar and structure of related affidavits.” To rely on factual similarities to render an adverse credibility determination would ignore that “persecution sometimes occurs through widespread or systematic actions by the government or by its acquiescence to third-party harm.”
The full text of Singh v. Garland can be found here:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/10/04/23-95.pdf