Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.

Immigration Law

Unpub. (2-1) CA5 Credibility Remand: Mpesse v. Garland

Mpesse v. Garland

"In light of the fact that the critical role in deciding credibility is for the IJ, and because both the BIA and this court have found that the IJ erred in some of the evidence he relied on to find that the petitioner was not credible, we are not confident in a finding that there was “no realistic possibility” that the IJ and BIA would have found the petitioner credible on the remaining evidence. We vacate the decision that was already made not because we disagree that what remains as valid evidence of inconsistency is not enough to uphold the BIA and IJ. Instead, we vacate and remand because it is for the BIA and, if there is a further remand, for the IJ to re-evaluate whether the remaining inconsistencies are enough. We GRANT the petition for review and REMAND to the BIA."

[Hats off to David J. Rozas!]