In this case, the respondent, a Nigerian national, testified that in Nigeria he had been a university student and active in a student union.  In 1995, after participating in street demonstrations, he was detained and tortured by the police.  He testified that he managed to escape the police and flee from Nigeria to South Korea, where he did not obtain any immigration status.  A Canadian there helped him obtain a false Canadian passport, which he used to get on a plane to the U.S.  At Los Angeles International Airport he was questioned by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and admitted that his passport was fraudulent, whereupon the INS initiated exclusion proceedings against him.

The immigration judge denied the respondent’s application for asylum and withholding of deportation, holding that he lacked credibility.  Specifically, the IJ relied upon inconsistencies in the respondent’s description of his torture, inconsistent statements as to the number of demonstrations in which he participated, insufficient detail in his description of his arrest and detention, and conclusions that his account of his experiences was implausible.  The respondent appealed to the BIA.  The BIA dismissed the appeal, but without adopting the IJ’s conclusions.  Instead, it found the respondent lacked credibility because of circumstances related to his attempt to enter the U.S.:  his inability to explain the prior chain of custody of his Canadian passport and his failure to demonstrate the time of his arrival in South Korea as well as to provide documentary evidence of his date of birth.

The respondent then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the district court to review the BIA’s decision.  The district court ruled that the three factors on which the BIA based its credibility determination were illegitimate and remanded the case.  On remand, the BIA continued to find that the respondent was not credible because he had not established the chain of custody of the fraudulent passport.  The BIA raised several other reasons for its adverse credibility determination, including that the respondent’s fraudulent entry into the U.S. was inconsistent with his claim to be fleeing persecution, that his account of his persecution in Nigeria contained inconsistencies, and that he failed to provide corroborating evidence for his claim of persecution.  The respondent filed a petition for review with the court of appeals.

In its decision on appeal, the court noted its prior decision in Turcios v. INS, 821 F.2d 1396 (9th Cir. 1987).  In Turcios, the court found that an asylum applicant’s false statements made to obtain entry to the U.S. "by themselves are not reason for refusal of refugee status and it is the examiner’s responsibility to evaluate such statements in the light of all of the circumstances of the case." Id. at 1400.  The court in that case concluded that such "misrepresentations are wholly consistent with [the applicant’s] testimony and application for asylum: he [made the misrepresentations] because he feared deportation to [his country of origin]." Id. at 1400–01.  The court also noted that this rule applies to the use of false documents as well as to false statements made to obtain entry to the U.S. For these reasons, the court found that the BIA’s credibility determinations based on the respondent’s attempt to enter the U.S. were improper.

Reviewing the BIA’s other credibility determinations, based on the respondent’s account of his persecution, the court found the "supposed discrepancies" to be either "minor or non-existent."  Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review, reversed the denial of withholding of deportation, and remanded the case to allow the BIA to exercise discretion in deciding whether to grant asylum.