Where an asylum claimant’s testimony was rife with inconsistencies, the immigration judge properly denied her claim.
“Based on Toure’s testimony at the 2007 hearing alone, the IJ had sufficient grounds to find her testimony incredible. Toure’s testimony was replete with material inconsistencies, including the length and conditions of her confinement, her knowledge about the whereabouts of her brother and children, and whether her father had been shot during the 2002 incident. It also appeared that Toure was supplementing some of her earlier statements by adding new facts about the attacks, such as her waking up in a pool of blood after allegedly having a miscarriage. Oddly, this testimony during cross-examination was the first time in the immigration process (which had begun three years and two asylum applications earlier) that Toure had ever mentioned the possibility that she was pregnant and had undergone a miscarriage during her captivity. We have found that ‘the addition of new factual assertions that were not originally set forth can be viewed as inconsistencies providing substantial evidence that the applicant is not a reliable or truthful witness.’ Xiao v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 712, 717 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). In light of the evolution of Toure’s assertions, there was substantial evidence supporting the IJ’s finding that Toure was embellishing her original claim in an attempt to increase her chances at obtaining relief.”
08-3478 Toure v. Holder
Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Williams, J.