Opinion ID: 66425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Reviewing Credibility Determinations under the REAL ID Act

Text: Effective May 11, 2005, Congress passed the REAL ID Act, which amended the standards for assessing credibility. See REAL ID Act §§ 101(a)(3), (c), (h)(2), Pub.L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 302. Because Wang filed her application in June of 2005, after the effective date of the Act, the new standards for evaluating witness credibility apply. We have not previously addressed in a published opinion how to apply those standards and whether this court's review of an IJ's assessment of credibility under those standards should be different as a result. Under the Act, an applicant's testimony, alone, may be sufficient to sustain the burden of proving eligibility for asylum, but only if the applicant satisfies the trier of fact that [his] testimony is credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). In making its credibility determination, the trier of fact may consider: the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent plausibility of the applicant's or witness's account, the consistency between the applicant's or witness's written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such statement, the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record (including the reports of the Department of State on country conditions), and any inaccuracies or falsehoods in such statements, without regard to whether an inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant's claim, or any other relevant factor. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Under this new provision, our sister circuit has held that the IJ may base an adverse credibility determination on inconsistencies without regard to whether they go to the heart of the applicant's claim. Lin v. Mukasey, 521 F.3d 22, 26-28 (1st Cir.2008); but see Ndrecaj v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 667, 674-75 (6th Cir.2008) (citing to the new provision but continuing to rely on a heart of the claim analysis; application appears to have been filed before the date of the Act). The new Act does not expressly address appellate review of an IJ's adverse credibility determination. Nonetheless, Congress's express rejection of the prior heart of the applicant's claim standard demonstrates an intent to provide more discretion to the IJ in determining credibility of witnesses, including the petitioner herself. We have long employed a highly deferential review to assessments of credibility by factfinders. See, e.g., United States v. Ford, 558 F.3d 371, 376 (5th Cir.2009) (addressing jury findings and concluding that this Court is bound to accept a jury's credibility determinations unless the challenged testimony `is so unbelievable on its face that it defies physical laws.') (internal citations omitted). This deferential standard has been applied to credibility determinations by an IJ even before the new Act took effect: Under the substantial evidence standard applicable to review of denials of asylum, we must defer to the BIA's factual findings unless the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find otherwise. Mikhael, 115 F.3d at 304. The question then becomes what the standard of review is under the REAL ID Act. Although we have not previously addressed this issue under the new Act, the Second Circuit has done so on multiple occasions. The Second Circuit concluded that, under the Act, an IJ may rely on any inconsistency or omission in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the `totality of the circumstances' establishes that an asylum applicant is not credible .... We defer therefore to an IJ's credibility determination unless, from the totality of the circumstances, it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could make such an adverse credibility ruling. Lin v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 162, 167 (2d Cir.2008); see also Zhao v. Mukasey, 553 F.3d 436, 444 (6th Cir.2009) (quoting new provision and continuing to apply its prior standard of review: [T]he BIA's determination should be upheld unless evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but indeed compels it.) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir.2008) (continuing to apply previous standard to cases under the new Act: we must uphold the IJ's decision unless the evidence compels a reasonable factfinder to reach a contrary result.); Mitondo v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 784, 787-88 (7th Cir.2008) (indicating that new Act's credibility section was enacted because Congress was [d]issatisfied with judicial reluctance to accept immigration judges' credibility decisions and noting that the statute requires courts to use in immigration proceedings the same deferential approach traditionally applied to credibility findings in labor cases and other administrative controversies.); Ismaiel v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 1198, 1205 n. 5 (10th Cir.2008) (observing that the Real ID Act has supplemented § 1252(b)(4)(B) by limiting circuit-court review of credibility findings but finding that section inapplicable to this case because the application was filed before the effective date of the Act); Li v. Holder, ___ Fed.Appx. ___, ___, No. 08-2032, 2009 WL 965924, , 2009 U.S.App. LEXIS 7617, at - (4th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) [5] (This court accords broad, though not unlimited, deference to credibility findings supported by substantial evidence.); cf. Kueviakoe v. United States Attorney General, ___ F.3d ___, ___, No. 08-11359, 2009 WL 1298537, , 2009 U.S.App. LEXIS 10060, at  (11th Cir.2009) (reversing adverse credibility determination based upon inconsistencies because they were not inconsistencies at all; that is no reasonable fact-finder could conclude on this record that they were inconsistencies.). Considering our prior standard in light of the amendments effectuated by the new Act, we conclude that the Second Circuit's formulation of the standard is the correct one, and we adopt it here.