Paramasamy v. Ashcroft: 9th Circuit Remands Case Due to IJ's Boilerplate Credibility Findings

IMMIGRATION LAW & POLICY

Asylum, Refugee, and Other
Protected Statuses

PARAMASAMY V. ASHCROFT: 9TH CIRCUIT REMANDS CASE DUE TO IJ'S BOILERPLATE CREDIBILITY FINDINGS
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 16, No. 5, September 10, 2002

Stating that "Cookie cutter findings are the antithesis of individual determinations required in asylum cases," the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded an asylum case in which the immigration judge used boilerplate demeanor findings to issue a denial.

The case was that of a Ms. Paramasamy, a Tamil woman from Sri Lanka whom the Sri Lankan army suspected of being a guerrilla. Paramasamy lived in Jaffna, an area under control of a guerrilla group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam. In 1995, when the national army began occupying Jaffna, Paramasamy, along with other Tamils, including guerrillas, tried to flee the area but was caught by the army and confined for about a month. She testified that while she was being held, soldiers threatened and sexually assaulted her. She also alleged that government officials continued to harass her after the army released her. She finally came to the United States, where she applied for asylum.

The immigration judge denied the application, concluding that Paramasamy was not credible. The IJ's decision set forth detailed findings about Paramasamy's credibility and demeanor, and also speculated on her motives for leaving Sri Lanka, concluding that if she had in fact been sexually assaulted she would have disclosed this fact to the INS officers who questioned her at the port of entry. On appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, Paramasamy noted that, although the IJ's findings about her demeanor purported to be specific to her case, in fact the IJ made the same findings verbatim in two other cases. The BIA nevertheless upheld the IJ's decision, finding that the duplicate passages did not constitute a basis to disturb the IJ's findings regarding Paramasamy's demeanor.

The court of appeals began its analysis by noting that a judge's findings regarding demeanor are accorded substantial deference. Despite such deference, however, the court declined to accept the IJ's demeanor findings and held that the denial of asylum to Paramasamy could not be supported by substantial evidence. Citing Platero-Cortez v. INS, 804 F.2d 1127 (9th Cir. 1986), the court stated that deference to a judge's credibility findings presupposes that each case is evaluated on its own merits and that it "strained credulity" to accept that three different people would testify in exactly the same manner at the same point in their testimony.

Nor did the court of appeals accept the IJ's other findings. For example, it found fault with the way the IJ substituted her own conjecture for the evidence in the record. The court found no support for the IJ's findings that Paramasamy fled Sri Lanka out of a desire to find a spouse or obtain better job opportunities.

The IJ had also concluded that if Paramasamy had been sexually assaulted, she would have revealed this fact earlier than she did. The court of appeals, however, noted that when they interviewed her at the airport, INS officers had not asked Paramasamy any details about her detention by the Sri Lankan military. Therefore, her nondisclosure upon seeking to enter the U.S. could not be deemed inconsistent with her later testimony. More importantly, the court went on to take note of and discuss the fact that women who have suffered sexual abuse have difficulty reporting it. Accordingly, the court remanded the case so that an individualized determination can be made on the particular facts of Paramasamy's case.

Paramasamy v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2002).