Dangerous Side Effects May Occur: the Real Id Act’s Prescription for Changing Standards of Credibility and Corroboration in Asylum Law by Sheilah

An asylum applicant begins with a formal application to the Attorney General for protection.[1] They must show in an interview with an asylum officer that they are a refugee, that they have been persecuted in the country of their nationality, and that they have a well founded fear of future persecution, on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.[2] Their case will eventually land in front of an immigration judge (“IJ”), who will listen to their story and evaluate any corroborating evidence they can provide.[3] Before the IJ makes a decision, the judge must make a credibility finding based on the applicant’s testimony and any corroborating evidence.[4] If the IJ makes an adverse credibility determination, or finds a lack of corroborating evidence, the asylum petition is denied.[5] The applicant can then appeal, in turn, to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), and to the federal appellate courts.[6]