Opinion ID: 775085
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Counterfeit Birth Certificates

Text: 15 The record confirms that the two notarial birth certificates Chen submitted with his first application state that he was born in 1979, although the birth certificate submitted with his second application lists his correct birth year, 1975. The BIA cited this documentary evidence, and the fact that Chen did not explain or rebut their counterfeit nature, in finding Chen not to be credible. We find that the birth certificates are not a legitimate basis for an adverse credibility finding in this case. 16 First, the BIA discounted Chen's credibility because he did not explain or rebut the counterfeit nature of these documents. However, Chen was in fact forthright when asked whether he knew the original birth certificate was fraudulent: he testified that he did not and that perhaps his relatives had made a mistake when applying for the documents. We find no evasiveness in this answer. In Shah, 220 F.3d at 1068, this court would not uphold an adverse credibility finding based on a discrepancy between the date listed on the death certificate of the petitioner's husband and the date of death identified by the petitioner in her testimony. We reasoned that because the discrepancy [was] capable of being attributed to a typographical or clerical error, it could not form the basis of an adverse credibility finding. Id. Here, as in Shah, [t]here are any number of reasons to account for the discrepancies between the dates in the birth certificates submitted in Chen's first and second applications. See id. As the dissent to the BIA's majority opinion noted in this case, by not considering Chen's explanation, the IJ and the majority ignored well-established precedent that testimonial evidence may be the most important and dispositive part of any asylum claim. 17 More importantly, if discrepancies cannot be viewed as attempts by the applicant to enhance his claims of persecution [they] have no bearing on credibility. Damaize-Job v. I.N.S., 787 F.2d 1332, 1337 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Vilorio-Lopez v. I.N.S., 852 F.2d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir. 1988) (stating [m]inor inconsistencies in the record such as discrepancies in dates which reveal nothing about an asylum applicant's fear for his safety are not an adequate basis for an adverse credibility finding). The only stated purpose of the birth certificates in Chen's first application was to determine whether he should be detained as an adult or a minor. The purpose of the notarial certificate in his second application is simply to establish Chen's identity and his date of birth. In neither instance do the birth certificates enhance his claims for asylum. These documents were incidental to Chen's claims for asylum in his first and second applications and reveal nothing about his fear for his safety. See Akinmade, 196 F.3d at 954. 18 Because there are any number of reasons to account for the discrepancies in the birth certificates and these documents do not go to the heart of Chen's claim, they cannot form the basis for an adverse credibility finding.