Opinion ID: 3167560
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Alleged Beating — Number of Assailants

Text: The four facts the Board referenced in affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility determination all regard the attack on Saed by a mob of Muslim extremists. In reviewing the facts of this incident, the Board reasserted the erroneous finding of the IJ that Saed had been inconsistent regarding the number of assailants that had beaten him — apparently claiming 40 at one point in his testimony and 100 at another. A.R. 4. This finding was erroneous because Saed’s testimony before the IJ reveals no such plain inconsistency. Saed testified that, when he was attacked, he “noticed more than 100 people” in a mob outside his house. A.R. 272. Later, he testified to being attacked by “40 Muslim individuals.” AR 289. The IJ made no effort to clarify if Saed had intended to communicate a difference in the number of persons merely present and those who actually attacked him (as Saed’s words No. 14-4136 Marouf, et al. v. Lynch Page 10 appear to indicate), and made no inquiry as to whether the language barrier or use of translation could explain the potential discrepancy, as our precedents require. A.R. 82. The IJ simply concluded that Saed “cannot keep straight the number of people involved.” Id. The Board contributed nothing further to the analysis, noting: “The Immigration Judge found that the respondents were inconsistent regarding the number of people involved . . . . We will not disturb the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding.” A.R. 4. Saed’s testimony regarding the number of persons present at his beating and the number that actually participated does not reveal an obvious inconsistency, and does not amount to substantial evidence supporting an adverse credibility determination.