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

Heading: Reliance on the Record of Petitioner's Credible Fear Interview

Text: Petitioner also contends that the agency erred in considering the statements that she made during her credible fear interview. Evaluating the merits of this challenge requires us to determine the circumstances under which an IJ and the BIA may consider the record of a credible fear interview when evaluating an alien's credibility. In Ramsameachire, we stated that the BIA ... must closely examine each airport interview before concluding that it represents a sufficiently accurate record of the alien's statements, having observed that [t]he airport interview is an inherently limited forum for the alien to express the fear that will provide the basis for his or her asylum claim. 357 F.3d at 179. As we explained: The interview takes place immediately after an alien has arrived in the United States, often after weeks of travel, and may be perceived by the alien as coercive or threatening, depending on the alien's past experiences. Moreover, at the interview, the alien is not represented by counsel, and may be completely unfamiliar with United States immigration laws and the elements necessary to demonstrate eligibility for asylum. Finally, because those most in need of asylum may be the most wary of governmental authorities, the BIA and reviewing court must recognize, in evaluating the statements made in an interview, that an alien may not be entirely forthcoming in the initial interview. Id. We thereafter provided a non-exhaustive list of factors that the BIA should use to evaluate whether an airport interview can be considered reliable. Id. at 179-80 (relying on Balasubramanrim v. INS, 143 F.3d 157 (3d Cir.1998) and Senathirajah v. INS, 157 F.3d 210 (3d Cir.1998)). We further explained that the BIA, upon determining that an airport interview is sufficiently reliable, should accord weight to any discrepancies between the airport interview and later statements in light of the relatively superficial nature of the airport interview. Id. at 180. Where, however, the concerns identified in Ramsameachire do not apply to the same degree, we have recognized that the BIA and reviewing courts need not engage in special scrutiny of an interview record. See Diallo v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 624, 632 (2d Cir.2006) ([I]n light of the differences between asylum interview[s] and airport interviews, ... asylum interview[s]... do not call for special scrutiny, as airport interviews do.). For example, in Diallo, we noted that, in contrast with airport interviews, asylum interviews take place after the alien has arrived in the United States, has taken the time to submit a formal asylum application, and has had the opportunity to gather his or her thoughts, to prepare for the interview, and to obtain counsel. Id. On that basis, we concluded that the imperative to `closely examine' the reliability of asylum interviews is not as pressing as it is in the airport interview context. Id. (quoting Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 179). We further explained: This is not to say, of course, that the BIA and reviewing courts are not required carefully to consider the reliability of asylum interviews. Of course they are. As with other materials in the asylum record, factfinders should accord to them the weight that they merit in light of the record as a whole, and we should review the resulting factual determinations for substantial evidence. Id. Credible fear interviews occur after an alien has, at an airport interview, indicate[d] an intention to apply for asylum, or expresse[d] a fear of persecution or torture, or a fear of return to his or her country. 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(4). Federal regulations require that all applicants who are referred from an airport interview to a credible fear interview be provided with a Form M-444, titled Information About Credible Fear Interview. Id. § 235.3(b)(4)(i). This form describes: (A) The purpose of the referral and description of the credible fear interview process; (B) The right to consult with other persons prior to the interview and any review thereof at no expense to the United States Government; (C) The right to request a review by an immigration judge of the asylum officer's credible fear determination; and (D) The consequences of failure to establish a credible fear of persecution or torture. Id. The right to consultation described in Form M-444 is explicitly recognized in a related regulation, which provides that an alien may consult with a person or persons of the alien's choosing prior to the [credible fear] interview or any review thereof and that [a]ny person or persons with whom the alien chooses to consult may be present at the [credible fear] interview and may be permitted, in the discretion of the asylum officer, to present a statement at the end of the interview. Id. § 208.30(d)(4). Finally, like petitioner in this case, an alien is ordinarily detained during the interval between the airport interview and the credible fear interview. See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV); 8 C.F.R. § 235.3(b)(4)(ii). Based on the foregoing, a credible fear interview appears to fall somewhere on the spectrum of reliability between an airport interview and an asylum interview when one considers its relative formality, its potential to be perceived as coercive, and its ability to elicit all of the details supporting an asylum claim. On the one hand, unlike an airport interview, a credible fear interview occurs several days after an alien arrives in the United States and after he or she has had the opportunity to consult with a person or persons of the alien's choosing. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(d)(4); Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 179 (noting that airport interviews occur immediately after an alien has arrived in the United States and that the alien is not represented by counsel). Furthermore, an alien is notified prior to the interview that [i]t is very important that you tell the officer all the reasons why you have concerns about being removed. J.A. 657 (Form M-444, Information About Credible Fear Interview). On the other hand, an alien appearing at a credible fear interview has ordinarily been detained since his or her arrival in the United States and is therefore likely to be more unprepared, more vulnerable, and more wary of government officials than an asylum applicant who appears for an interview before immigration authorities well after arrival. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B) (requiring application for asylum within one year of arrival in the United States); Diallo, 445 F.3d at 632 (noting that asylum interviews take place after the alien has arrived in the United States, has taken the time to submit a formal asylum application, and has had the opportunity to gather his or her thoughts[ and] to prepare for the interview). Moreover, although credible fear interviewees are asked to provide all of the reasons for their concern about being removed, they are not required to give a detailed and specific account of the bases for their claims, as applicants for asylum must in their asylum application. See Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal 5, http:// www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-589.pdf (last visited Oct. 14, 2009) (requesting specific dates, places, and descriptions about each event or action described and documents evidencing ... the specific facts on which you are relying to support your claim). We conclude that credible fear interviews are more similar to airport interviews than asylum interviews and therefore warrant the close examination called for by Ramsameachire. Importantly, credible fear interviews, like airport interviews, are part of what can be characterized as a defensive path to asylum, which must be pursued by aliens detained at the border, in contrast to an affirmative path by which an alien already present in the United States submits an application for asylum. Furthermore, credible fear interviews are not designed to elicit all the details of an alien's claim, but rather only to determine whether there is a significant possibility ... that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(v). [3] Consequently, it is not surprising that, in some cases, insignificant details about an applicant's claim might not be mentioned during a credible fear interview, only to be later elicited in an asylum interview. Cf. Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 180 (noting, with respect to airport interviews, that [i]t may often be the case that an alien's answers ... provide a less detailed account of the alien's experiences than his or her subsequent asylum application and testimony). Because one would expect the information provided during a credible fear interview to vary from information elicited at later stages of the asylum process, adverse credibility determinations based on discrepancies with a credible fear interview should be examined with care to ensure that they are not arbitrary. See id. at 180-81 ([T]he nature of the inconsistencies themselves will decide whether the alien's ... statements render his or her subsequent testimony incredible.). In reviewing an adverse credibility determination, however, the BIA need not engage in robotic incantations or make any talismanic references to close examination or special scrutiny. Cf. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 336-37 n. 17 (2d Cir.2006) (explaining that an IJ need not engage in robotic incantations to demonstrate that he or she has considered and rejected petitioner's evidence). Where the record of a credible fear interview displays the hallmarks of reliability, it appropriately can be considered in assessing an alien's credibility. See Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 180. Here, petitioner's credible fear interview, like her airport interview, bears sufficient indicia of reliability to warrant its consideration by the agency. Although it is unclear whether the credible fear interview report purports to be a verbatim account of the interview, the proceeding was memorialized in a typewritten document setting forth the questions put to petitioner as well as her responses. See id.; cf. In re S-S-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 121, 123-24 (B.I.A.1995) (When ... the applicant's credibility is placed in issue because of alleged statements made at the asylum interview, our review requires a reliable record of what transpired at that interview. This record might be preserved in a hand-written account of the specific questions asked of the applicant and his specific responses to those questions.). The record further reflects that the interview was conducted with the aid of a Mandarin interpreter and petitioner does not contend that she did not understand the questions presented. See Ramsameachire, 357 F.3d at 181. The credible fear interview report makes clear that, before asking petitioner any questions, the interviewing officer explained the purpose of the interview, the importance of providing full and accurate testimony, and the fact that petitioner could ask for clarification at any point during the proceedings. Finally, petitioner was asked questions that were clearly designed to elicit a potential basis for an asylum claim, id., such as whether she or her family had ever been mistreated or threatened in the past and whether she feared she would be harmed upon return to China. We again reject the notion that a petitioner's claim that she was nervous and distracted during the credible fear interview automatically undermines or negates its reliability as a source of her statements. See id. at 181-82; see also Guan, 432 F.3d at 397 n. 6. Petitioner's credible fear interview, like her 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.