Opinion ID: 168640
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inconsistency Regarding the Date of the Death of Mr. Sarr's Mother

Text: 60 The BIA also stated that the record reflects that [Mr. Sarr] made contradictory statements with regard to ... the issue of when his mother, who he claimed successfully preserved at least one family document, passed away. Admin. R. at 2-3. For its part, the IJ's opinion adds little substance to this discussion. As a reason for disbelieving Mr. Sarr, the IJ pointed out that Mr. Sarr indicated to the Court that his mother died in 1994 but this afternoon when he was asked again he said 1991, then he said 1994. Id. at 55. 61 Mr. Sarr discussed his mother's death at three different points during the hearing. The first mention came while Mr. Sarr was discussing the difficulties of life in the refugee camp: 62 Q: What happened with your mother? 63 A: While we were there life was very difficult.... And my mother was with a lot of pain because of everything that happened and I think she died, you know, as a result of all these things. 64 Q: When did she die? 65 A: She died in 1994. 66 Id. at 89. The second discussion of his mother's demise entailed a fairly detailed account of the circumstances surrounding the death, but no specific date was asked for or offered. Id. at 98-99. The third discussion of his mother's death was the subject of some confusion between the court, the lawyers, and the interpreter. It began with Mr. Sarr's lawyer, Ms. Healy, asking Mr. Sarr again to discuss his mother's death: 67 Q: Alassane, at our last hearing there were some questions with regard to the death of your mother and that's what I wanted to ask you about. Can you tell me what year your mother died in? A: (No audible response.) 68 Id. The IJ then interjected and the following colloquy occurred between him and Ms. Healy: 69 [IJ]: 1994 according to what he said. 70 [Ms. Healy]: Okay. 71 [IJ]: So it's been asked and answered, so. 72 Id. at 119-20. Without further prompting, Mr. Sarr (through his translator) said: 73 In 1991. She got very sick and this was a result of the past thing that happened to us. I was out and when I came back I found her. Again she had relapsed. We took her to the Red Cross and she had office visit there and she was given some pills to take. And we went home and in the afternoon a little bit after 3:00 that's when she died. 74 Id. at 120. Ms. Healy then turned to the IJ and had the following discussion: 75 [Ms. Healy]: And because there was some confusion can I ask again when she died? 76 [IJ]: No. 77 [Ms. Healy]: Okay. 78 [IJ]: She [Mr. Sarr's interpreter] said 1991. 79 [Ms. Healy]: Okay. 80 [IJ]: That's not what he told me last time. 81 [Ms. Healy]: 1991, okay. 82 [IJ]: That's what he said. The last time he told me 1994. That's what I have in my notes. 83 [Ms. Healy]: Right, that's what I have too and so I want to make sure that it was clear because I'm not sure the stories— 84 [IJ]: Well, I got the answer already so. 85 [Ms. Healy]: Okay. 86 Id. at 120-21. Seven questions later, Ms. Healy asked Mr. Sarr what his family painted on his mother's grave marker. He answered: Her name, the date that she died. Id. at 122. The IJ then directly addressed Mr. Sarr: 87 Q: Tell me what the date is again. 88 A: I do not remember the exact date but I remember the year. 89 Q: Tell me what it is. 90 A: 1994. 91 Q: Okay. 92 Id. at 122. 93 In view of this evidence, two things are evident. First, although there was some confusion as to Mr. Sarr's response (perhaps due to translation issues), Mr. Sarr did, momentarily, contradict himself as to the date of his mother's death. Second, that contradiction was a minor discrepancy that Mr. Sarr quickly corrected. Because the date of his mother's death made no difference to the strength or plausibility of his story, he had no incentive to change or reshape his testimony on this point. We do not believe this minor mistake constitutes substantial evidence upon which an adverse credibility finding can be based. In Diallo v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1274, 1283 (10th Cir.2006), this Court affirmed an adverse credibility finding where the petitioner was given the opportunity to explain ... inconsistencies but failed to do so to the IJ's satisfaction. Here, by contrast, Mr. Sarr was given no opportunity to explain, and the inconsistency is far less significant than that in Diallo. 94 Aside from the lone misstep as to the year, Mr. Sarr's testimony regarding his mother's death was reasonably detailed and consistent. Moreover, the BIA seems to have linked the inconsistency about the date of his mother's death (a point that has little to do with his request for asylum) with the validity of the birth certificate (a point that has much to do with his request for asylum), see Admin. R. at 3 ([R]espondent made contradictory statements with regard to ... the issue of when his mother, who he claimed successfully preserved at least one family document, passed away.)—a jump that has no logical foundation since, under either date, Mr. Sarr's mother would have been alive at the time of the document destruction.