Matter of R-A-U-

Summary

The Board of Immigration Appeals held that the Immigration Judge clearly erred in finding the applicant credible due to numerous inconsistencies and omissions concerning his alleged persecution in Morocco, asylum history in Germany, and immigration statements. The Board reversed the Immigration Judge’s asylum decision and remanded for consideration of withholding of removal, protection under the Convention Against Torture, firm resettlement, and any other relevant issues.

Holdings

1. The Immigration Judge clearly erred in concluding that the applicant presented a credible claim for asylum because the record contained material inconsistencies and omissions concerning his alleged persecution, German asylum proceedings, identity, travel history, and statements to immigration officials.
2. The record had to be remanded because the Immigration Judge did not adjudicate the applicant's applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture after granting asylum.
3. On remand, the Immigration Judge may further consider the applicant's credibility if additional evidence warrants reconsideration, should address whether the applicant was firmly resettled in Germany, and should alternatively address eligibility for relief or protection apart from the applicant's noncredible testimony if appropriate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Immigration Judge clearly erred in finding that the applicant's testimony was credible despite material inconsistencies and omissions in the record.
2. Whether the record should be remanded for adjudication of the applicant's withholding-of-removal and Convention Against Torture applications that the Immigration Judge did not address.
3. Whether the Immigration Judge should further consider firm resettlement in Germany and, if appropriate, eligibility for relief apart from the applicant's noncredible testimony.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded