Opinion ID: 2453
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reliance on the Record of Petitioner's Airport Interview

Text: Petitioner contends that the agency erred in relying on the record of her airport interview when assessing her credibility. We disagree. [A]n IJ is not precluded from relying on an alien's testimony in an airport interview as long as the record of that testimony represents a sufficiently accurate record of the alien's statements to merit consideration in determining whether the alien is credible. Guan v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 391, 396 (2d Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). And, as we have previously held, the record of an airport interview is sufficiently accurate to merit consideration when it (1) provides a `verbatim account or transcript' of the alien's statements; (2) was conducted in a manner `designed to elicit the details of an asylum claim'; and (3) contains no indication that the alien was reluctant `to reveal information' or `did not understand English or the translations provided by the interpreter.' Id. (quoting Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 179-80 (2d Cir.2004)). But see Guan, 432 F.3d at 396 ([W]e do not regard these factors as essential to be assessed in every case, but simply as helpful matters to be considered where appropriate.). In the instant case, petitioner was informed about the purpose of the airport interview and the importance of providing full and accurate testimony, asked about her ability to comprehend the questions posed to her, and given the opportunity to be interviewed in a private area. Furthermore, like the statements whose consideration we endorsed in Ramsameachire and Guan, the record of petitioner's airport interview bears hallmarks of accuracy and reliability, as it is typewritten, signed by [petitioner], and initialed by [her] on each page. Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 181; see also Guan, 432 F.3d at 397 (noting that (1) the INS officer read Guan a[ ] ... statement concerning her rights under U.S. law and exhorting her to provide a full account of any persecution she may have suffered in China, (2) Guan was promptly provided with an interpreter and asked to confirm that she could understand the proceedings, and (3) Guan signed and initialed the interview transcript after indicating that her answers were `true and correct' and that her `statement is a full, true, and correct record of [her] interrogation'). Here, petitioner's airport interview was both (1) conducted in a non-coercive and careful manner, Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 181, and (2) appropriately documented by the interviewing authorities, id.; see also Guan, 432 F.3d at 397. Accordingly, the record of that interview was sufficiently reliable to merit consideration. Petitioner's subsequent assertions that she was nervous and afraid during this interview do not alter our analysis, for reasons we set forth in Ramsameachire and Guan. See Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 181-82 ([A]lthough Ramsameachire attempts to reconcile the differences between his airport statements and his later testimony by asserting that he was nervous about speaking to INS officials at the airport, the fact that he stated at the interview that he was comfortable speaking in a private room and that he understood the purpose of the interview undermines any claim that the interview was unduly coercive or that Ramsameachire felt that he had no opportunity to explain his situation to the officer.); see also Guan, 432 F.3d at 397 n. 6 (approving of this observation and noting that, while the IJ and BIA should not overlook complaints of coercion altogether, an alien's mere recitation that he was nervous or felt pressured during an airport interview will not automatically prevent the IJ or BIA from relying [on] statements in such interviews when making adverse credibility determinations (citation omitted)).