The respondent in this case, who is approximately 20 years old, testified that her father had subjected her to increasing physical and emotional abuse because she refused to follow his orthodox Muslim religious beliefs, including the notion that girls should stay in the home and be covered or veiled at all times.  On one occasion when she was 14 years old, the respondent had gone out in public in a short skirt.  Enraged by her transgression, the respondent’s father burned her thighs in order to scar them and discourage her from revealing them in the future.

On another occasion, she was beaten in the face after speaking with a young man to ask for directions.  After this incident, the father prohibited her from leaving the house, and she was not allowed to attend school.  Her father beat her at least once a week.  The respondent testified that she did not seek help from the authorities because her mother had previously sought such assistance without success.  She twice attempted suicide and on two other occasions attempted to run away from home.  Finally, her mother and an aunt who is a U.S. citizen helped her to leave Morocco and come to the U.S.

In the U.S., after the respondent was placed in removal proceedings, she applied for asylum and withholding of removal.  The immigration judge found the respondent not credible and dismissed her aunt’s testimony at the hearing as an attempt by the respondent to "embellish" her claim.  The IJ denied the applications for asylum and withholding and ordered her removed.

On appeal, the BIA rejected the IJ’s adverse credibility findings.  In doing so, the appeals panel found that the record did not support the IJ’s conclusion that discrepancies between the testimony presented by the respondent and her aunt undermined the former’s credibility.  Moreover, the BIA found that the IJ’s credibility findings were not supported by "specific and cogent reasons."  In addition, the BIA disagreed with the IJ’s characterization of the aunt’s testimony as an "embellishment" and instead placed "a great deal of weight" on it.  The BIA noted that "[w]e not only encourage, but require the introduction of corroborative testimonial and documentary evidence, where available."

The BIA found significant the aunt’s testimony regarding the severity and frequency of the beatings the respondent suffered and the futility of seeking governmental protection from such abuse "in light of societal religious mores."  In so finding, the BIA cited the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Considerations for Asylum Officers Adjudicating Asylum Claims from Women (1995) and noted that the U.S. State Dept. Country Reports for Morocco support this view.

Having rejected the IJ’s adverse credibility findings, the BIA then found that the respondent’s testimony and other evidence established both past persecution and a well-founded fear of persecution.  The BIA also found that the persecution was "on account of" religion—specifically, the difference between the father’s adherence to orthodox Islam and the respondent’s embrace of liberal Muslim beliefs.  Because of "the religious element in this case," the BIA found that "the domestic abuse suffered by the respondent is different from that described in Matter of R-A-, Int. Dec. 3403 (BIA 1999)" (see "Asylum Denied to Victim of Domestic Violence," Immigrants’ Rights Update, June 30, 1999, p. 7).  Therefore, the BIA concluded that the respondent qualifies for asylum.

The BIA also concluded that the respondent merits asylum in the exercise of discretion.  Although the documents used by the respondent to gain entry into the U.S. proved not to be genuine, the BIA concluded that "[i]n view of our favorable credibility finding and the respondent’s background, we accept her explanation that she understood the documents to be valid and that she did not intend to present fraudulent documents."  Accordingly, the BIA granted her asylum and ordered that the she be admitted to the U.S., thereby obviating the need to address her application for withholding.