Seventh Circuit Reviews Split Re Interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 208.13 Corroboration Rule as it Applies to Credible Testimony

Per Rapheal v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. Jul 02, 2008):

We explained in Gontcharova that the Board's interpretation of § 208.13(a) is not the only one possible, and then explained the then-existent circuit split: The Second and Third Circuits endorsed the Board's interpretation of the regulation, while the Ninth Circuit interpreted the regulation as meaning that it "does not require corroborative evidence ... from applicants for asylum and withholding of deportation who have testified credibly." Gontcharova, 384 F.3d at 876 (quoting Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir.2000)). We then noted in Gontcharova that "[w]e have expressed skepticism about the use of the corroboration rule to discount otherwise credible testimony." Id. at 877. However, rather than rejecting the Board's corroboration rule out of hand, we held that "[i]n order that we may review its application, ... an IJ must explain his use of it," and set forth the three-step inquiry noted above. Id. at 877.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Visit Aspen Publishers today! Free Shipping!