Credible Fear Lesson Plans Comparison Chart: 2006 2014 2017 2019

Angela Edman Prepared 2006  2014 Analysis
Dree Collopy Prepared 2014  2017 Analysis

CLINIC’s Lolita Brayman and Victoria Neilson 2017  2019 Analysis
Credible Fear Lesson Plans Comparison Chart: 2006  2014  2017  2019
Major Changes Introduced in:
 February 2014 Lesson Plan:
• Removes language on function of credible fear as a low-threshold screening

• Clarifies “significant possibility” standard: applicant must demonstrate “substantial and realistic possibility of succeeding” and cautions against “minimal or mere possibility”
• Modifies guidance on credible fear of torture screenings to require consideration of all elements of CAT definition
• Adds instructions to consider internal relocation
 February 2017 Lesson Plan:
• Removes language stating an individual should be found credible if there is a “significant possibility that the assertions underlying the applicant’s claim could be found credible in a full
asylum or withholding of removal hearing”
• Requires applicant to establish identity “by a preponderance of the evidence”
• Further deemphasizes the function of credible fear as an initial screening
 April 2019 Lesson Plan:
• Officer may require applicant to provide country conditions materials

• Increased references to DOS Human Rights reports as means to check country conditions information.
• Eliminates language that officer should consider the impact of cross-cultural issues, trauma, and the effects of detention, on credibility assessments, as well as other previously listed
factors which might explain or mitigate inconsistencies
• Eliminates text imposing on officer an “affirmative duty to elicit all information relevant to the nexus determination”
• If applicant has established past persecution but not well-founded fear of future persecution, applicant must meet humanitarian asylum standard
• Officer must consider internal relocation options and assess COI materials to determine if internal relocation is reasonable
• Analyzes Cardoza-Fonseca, implying that well-founded fear threshold may actually be higher than 10% because facts in that case were unusual
AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

• References Grace v. Whitaker throughout with standards to be used while injunction is in effect and standards to be used if injunction is lifted (implying belief that injunction was
wrongly issued)
• States that while Grace injunction is under effect, PSG analysis should only be Acosta immutability, not three-prong test
• Adds text from A-B- that for private actor harm, “the government must have abdicated its responsibility to control persecution”
• Adds requirement to consider internal relocation as part of “reasonableness” test for CAT screening
• Explicitly states that there is no general presumption against specific types of claims and explicitly states that the applicant does not have to delineate the PSG. (No reference to this
changing if Grace injunction is lifted)
Lesson Plan Overview

2006 Lesson Plan 2014 Lesson Plan 2017 Lesson Plan 2019 Lesson Plan
- In the Lesson Plan Overview (page 1),  (page 1) In the Lesson Plan Overview:
the 2014 plan is titled “Credible Fear”
while 2017 plan is titled “Credible Fear  “Lesson Description”  2019 plan eliminates “using the credible fear standard” at end of
of Persecution and Torture the sentence.
Determinations”
 “Student Materials/References”  2019 plan adds to list “INA § 241(b)(3); 8 C.F.R. §
- “Terminal Performance Objective”  1.2”
2017 plan adds “statutory provisions” to
the list of authorities governing whether  (page 2) “Background Reading”  eliminates background materials from lesson plan:
an applicant has established a credible - Bo Cooper, Procedures for Expedited Removal and Asylum Screening under the Illegal
fear. Also reorders the authorities to list Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 29 CONN. L. REV. 150 I,
statutory provisions and regulations 1503 (1997).
before policies and procedures. - U.S. Committee on International Religious Freedom, Study on Asylum Seekers in Expedited
Removal - Report on Credible Fear Determinations, (February 2005).
- “Background Reading”  adds two - Customs and Border Protection, Treatment of Cuban Asylum
additional documents related to Seekers at Land Border Ports of Entry, Memorandum for Directors, Field Operations,
eliminating the exception to expedited (Washington, DC: 10 June 2005).
removal for Cuban nationals - Joseph E. Langlois, Asylum Division, Office of International Affairs, Increase of Quality
Assurance Review for Positive Credible Fear Determinations and Release of Updated
Asylum Officer Basic Training Course Lesson Plan, Credible Fear of Persecution and
Torture Determinations, Memorandum to Asylum Office Directors, et al. (Washington, DC:
17 April 2006).

- Joseph E. Langlois, Asylum Division, Refugee, Asylum and International Operations
Directorate, Revised Credible Fear Quality Assurance Review Categories and Procedures,
Memorandum to Asylum Office Directors, et al. (Washington, DC: 23 December 2008).
 Adds background material:

H. Rept. No. 109-72 at 161-68 (2005)
 (page 3) “Critical Tasks”  adds:

Skill in assessing credibility of aliens in credible fear interviews (4)
 (page 4) “Table of Contents”  eliminates historical background section.
 Adds to Section X “Other Issues”:

- Part D – No General Presumptions
Against Certain Types of Cases; and
- Part E – Identity of Torturer.
Background
- Basic info and history of - Same information, but more - Cubans eliminated as an “exemption”  (2nd paragraph) Adds text
expedited removal and CFI. emphasis on removability. to expedited removal (with citations to “in which case they are referred to an asylum officer to determine whether they have a
Aliens subject to and exempt the federal register) (pp. 7-9) credible fear of persecution or torture” after description of being placed into expedited
from expedited removal. - More statutory and regulatory removal.
references. - Adds explanation / background about
- Parole: mandatory detention 1/17/17 DHS notice to apply expanded Adds citation to Illegal Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No.
through CFI, then discretion - Parole: discusses urgent ER to Cuban nationals (p. 12) 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, Sept. 30, 1996).
after positive CFI. parole during expedited
removal (ER) and post-positive - Reference to ICE’s discretion to parole  (4th paragraph) Adds text concerning
CFI; but only discusses criteria someone out of detention following a - withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA.
for parole during ER (medical positive credible fear finding eliminated
urgency or law enforcement (p. 12)
need); implies same criteria and
does not explain prosecutorial
discretion factors for post-CFI
Function of Credible Fear Screening


- Congressional intent: “low - Removes all references to - No changes.  eliminates all historical background on credible fear screenings
screening standard for Congressional intent, and DOJ
admission into the usual full intent at CF implementing
asylum process, and provide regulations  Eliminates text:
assurance against refoulement. - Removes language on - If an alien passes this threshold-screening standard, his or her claim for protection ... will be
- “Net” to capture all potential function as a net or low further examined by an immigration judge in the context of removal proceedings under
refugees threshold/screening standard section 240 of the Act. The screening mechanism also allows for the expeditious review by
- DOJ statement at CFI - Adds DOJ CAT an immigration judge of a negative screening determination and the quick removal of an alien
implementing regulations: implementing language: with no credible claim to protection."
“low threshold of proof of “quickly identify potentially - Essentially, the asylum officer is applying a threshold screening standard to decide whether
potential entitlement to meritorious claims and resolve an asylum [or torture] claim holds enough promise that it should be heard through the
asylum; many aliens who have frivolous ones with dispatch” regular, full process or whether, instead, the person's removal should be effected through the
passed the CF standard will not - Adds language from law expedited process.
ultimately be granted asylum.” review article on threshold - Bo Cooper, Procedures for Expedited Removal and Asylum Screening under the lllegal
- Purpose: ensure access to full requiring holding sufficient Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 29 CONN. L. REV. 1501,
hearing “promise” 1503 (1997).
Definition of Credible Fear of Persecution and Credible Fear of Torture
- Persecution: INA § Same - No changes.  Prior text “Definition of Credible Fear of Persecution”
235(b)(1)(B)(v)
- Torture: 8 C.F.R. § Adds- Regulations further provide that the applicant will be found to have a credible fear of
208.30(e)(3) persecution if the applicant establishes that there is a significant possibility that he or she can
establish eligibility for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA.
- C.F.R. § 208.30(e)(2)
 Prior text “Definition of Credible Fear of Torture”  adds text (changes in bold):
- Regulations provide that the applicant will be found to have a credible fear of torture if the
applicant establishes that there is a significant possibility that he or she is eligible for
withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act or deferral of removal, under
the Convention Against Torture, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 208.16 or § 208.17.if the
applicant is subject to a mandatory bar to withholding of removal under the regulations
issued pursuant to the legislation implementing the Convention Against Torture.
- Adds cite: C.F.R. § 208.16; 8 C.F.R. § 2018.17
Burden of Proof

- “Significant possibility” (SP) - “Significant possibility” must - No changes.  (page 10) “A. Burden of Proof / Testimony as Evidence”:
must be applied in conjunction be applied in conjunction
w/standard for ultimate w/standard for ultimate  Eliminates text:
determination determination - Because of the non-adversarial nature of credible fear interviews, while the burden is
always on the applicant to establish eligibility, there is a shared aspect of that burden in
which asylum officers have an affirmative duty to elicit all information relevant to the legal
determination. The burden is on the applicant to establish a credible fear, but asylum officers
must fully develop the record to support a legally sufficient determination.
 Replaces with text:

- Asylum officers are required by regulation to “conduct the interview in a nonadversarial
manner.” The regulation also instructs asylum officers that “[t]he purpose of the [credible
fear] interview shall be to elicit all relevant and useful information bearing on whether the
applicant has a credible fear of persecution or torture…”
 Adds cite: Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316, 340 (AG 2018); C.F.R. § 208.30(d)
- Claim with “minimal or mere - Claim with “minimal or mere - No changes.  Eliminates text:
possibility” does not meet possibility” does not meet SOP - Oftentimes, in the credible fear context of expedited removal and detention, an applicant
standard of proof (SOP) will not be able to provide additional evidence corroborating his or her otherwise credible
testimony. An applicant may establish a credible fear with testimony alone if that testimony
is detailed, consistent, and plausible.
 Adds text (changes in bold):

- According to the INA, the applicant’s testimony may be sufficient to sustain the
applicant’s burden of proof if it is “credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts
efficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee. An applicant is a refugee only if
her or she has been persecuted or has a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political
opinion.”
- Adds cite: INA § 101(a)(42)
 Eliminates text:
- Therefore, the terms “persuasive” and “specific facts” must have independent meaning
above and beyond the first term “credible.”
- Does not require proof that - Does not require proof that - No changes.  Eliminates text:
harm is more likely than not harm is more likely than not - After developing a sufficient record by eliciting all relevant testimony, an asylum officer
must analyze whether the applicant’s testimony is sufficiently credible, persuasive, and

- But more misleading here, specific to be accorded sufficient evidentiary weight to meet the significant possibility
when combined with emphasis standard.”
on high standards
 Adds text:
- Under the INA, the asylum officer is also entitled to determine that the applicant must
provide evidence that corroborates the applicant’s testimony, even where the officer might
otherwise find the testimony credible. In cases in which the asylum officer determines that
the applicant must provide the applicant notice and the opportunity to submit evidence, and
the applicant must provide the evidence unless the applicant cannot reasonable obtain the
evidence.”
- Adds Cite: INA § 235(b)(1)(B)(v); 8 C.F.R. § 208.30(e)(2); see RAIO Training Module,
Country Conditions Research.
 Adds text:
- The regulations instruct asylum officers as follows: “in deciding whether the alien has a
credible fear of persecution or torture pursuant to § 208.30 of this part,… the asylum officer
may rely on material provide by the Department of State, other USCIS offices, or other
credible sources, such as international organizations, private voluntary agencies, news
organizations, or academic institutions.
Thus in evaluating the credibility of an applicant’s claim to be a refugee, the asylum officer
must consider information about the country from which the alien claims refugee status, such
as the prevalence of torture or persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in
a particular social group, or political opinion. Such information may be derived from several
sources.
- Adds cite: C.F.R. § 208.12(a)
- Asylum Officer (AO) must Must consider whether - No changes.  (page 11) “B. Credible Fear Standard of Proof: Significant Possibility”:
consider whether applicant’s applicant’s case presents “novel
case presents “novel or unique or unique issues” that merit - Eliminates text:
issues” that merit consideration consideration before IJ. When interim regulations were issued to implement the credible fear process, the Department
before IJ. of Justice described the credible fear "significant possibility" standard as one that sets "a low
threshold of proof of potential entitlement to asylum; many aliens who have passed the
credible fear standard will not ultimately be granted asylum." Nonetheless, in the initial
regulations, the Department declined suggestions to "adopt regulatory language emphasizing
that the credible fear standard is a low one and that cases of certain types should necessarily
meet that standard."
- Immigration and Naturalization Service, Inspection and Expedited

Removal of Aliens; Detention and Removal of Aliens; Conduct of Removal
Proceedings; Asylum Procedures, 62 Fed. Reg. 10312, 10317-20 (Mar. 6, 1997).
- While a mere possibility of success is insufficient to meet the credible fear standard, the
"significant possibility" standard does not require the applicant to demonstrate that the
chances of success are more likely than not.”
- See U.S. Committee on International Religious Freedom, Study on Asylum Seekers in
Expedited Removal - Report on Credible Fear Determinations, pg. 170 (Feb. 2005);
UNHCR, A Thematic Compilation of Executive Committee Conclusions, pp. 438-40, 6th Ed.,
June 2011. "Not manifestly unfounded" claims are (1) "not clearly fraudulent" and (2) "not
related to the criteria for the granting of refugee status." 142 CONG. REC. Hll071, Hl!081
(daily ed. Sept. 25, 1996) (statement of Rep. Hyde) (noting that the credible fear standard was
"redrafted in the conference document to address fully concerns that the 'more probable than
not' language in the original House version was too restrictive").
 Prior text (changes in bold):

- In sum, the credible fear “significant possibility” standard of proof can be best understood
as requiring that the applicant 'demonstrate a substantial and realistic possibility of
succeeding,' but not requiring the applicant to show that he or she is more likely than
not going to succeed when before an immigration judge. or establishing eligibility for
asylum, withholding of removal or deferral of removal. The standard requires the
applicant to identify more than “significant evidence” that the applicant is a refugee
entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or deferral of removal, but the applicant
does not need to show that the “preponderance” or majority of the evidence establishes
that entitlement.
Joseph E. Langlois. Asylum Division. Office of International Affairs, Increase of Quality
Assurance Review for Positive Credible Fear Determinations and Release of Updated
Asylum Officer Basic Training Course Lesson Plan, Credible Fear of Persecution and
Torture Determinations, Memorandum to Asylum Office Directors, et al. (Washington,
DC: 17 April 2006).
- Does not make reference to - Does not make reference to - No changes.
correct well-founded fear correct well-founded fear
(WFF) standard in INS v. (WFF) standard in INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca Cardoza-Fonseca

- Paragraph 3, p. 16  “When - “Important Considerations in  (page 12) “C. Important Considerations in Interpreting and Applying the Standard”:
there is reasonable doubt Interpreting and Applying the Standard”
regarding the outcome of a  uses language “including when there  Eliminates text:
credible fear determination, the Is reasonable doubt regarding the 1. The "significant possibility" standard of proof required to establish a credible fear of
applicant likely merits a outcome of a credible fear persecution or torture must be applied in conjunction with the standard of proof required for
positive credible fear determination” (p. 17) the ultimate determination on eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or protection
determination. The questions under the Convention Against Torture.
at issue can be addressed in a For instance, in order to establish a credible fear of torture, an applicant must show a
full hearing before an "significant possibility" that he or she could establish eligibility for protection under the
immigration judge.” Convention Against Torture, i.e. a "significant possibility" that it is "more likely than not"
that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal. This is a
higher standard to meet than for an applicant attempting to establish a "significant
possibility" that he or she could establish eligibility for asylum based upon a well-founded
fear of persecution on account of a protected characteristic, i.e. a "significant possibility" that
he or she could establish a "reasonable possibility" of suffering persecution on account of a
protected characteristic if returned to his or her home country.
2. Questions as to how the standard is applied should be considered in light of the nature of
the standard as a screening standard to identify persons who could qualify for asylum or
protection under the Convention against Torture, including when there is reasonable doubt
regarding the outcome of a credible fear determination.
3. In determining whether the alien has a credible fear of persecution or a credible fear of
torture, the asylum officer shall consider whether the applicant's case presents novel or
unique issues that merit consideration in a full hearing before an immigration judge.
4. Similarly, where there is:

a. disagreement among the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal as to the proper
interpretation of a legal issue; or,
b. the claim otherwise raises an unresolved issue of law; and,
c. there is no DHS or Asylum Division policy or guidance on the issue, then generally the
interpretation most favorable to the applicant is used when determining whether the applicant
meets the credible fear standard.
- Identity: must establish with - Identity: must establish with - Identity section is streamlined from  (page 13) “D. Identity”:
reasonable degree of certainty. reasonable degree of certainty. 3 paragraphs to 1 (p. 17)
Credible testimony can suffice.  Prior text (changes in bold):

- Note added: use info from - Changed from “with a reasonable - The applicant must be able to establish his or her identity by a preponderance of the
ICE/CBP to establish identity degree of certainty” to “credibly evidence credibly.
establish
…by a preponderance of the evidence”
- Eliminates language that “the officer

must elicit information in order to
establish that there is a significant
possibility that the applicant will be
able to credibly establish his or her
identity in a full asylum or
withholding of removal hearing.” (p. 18)
- Removes paragraph about eliciting

identity information for determining
whether to parole an alien. (p. 18)
- “Significant possibility”: no - “Significant Possibility”: - No changes.
set definition, but helpful to substantial and realistic
view as substantial and possibility of success
realistic possibility of success - Includes reminder of low
- Includes reminder of low screening standard of intent,
screening standard intent but followed by immediate
rebuttal and statements
implying low threshold need
not be applied (as referenced
above)
- References asylum standard,
but does not provide instruction
on “reasonable possibility,” nor
mention Cardoza-Fonseca 1/10
standard
- Rules for Ambiguity: Decide Problematic addition to - No changes.
in favor of applicant when: ambiguity rule: Decide in favor
1) Circuit Split, OR of applicant if:
2) Unresolved issue of law 1) Circuit split, or

2) Unresolved area of law,
AND
3) *There is no DHS or
Asylum Division guidance on
the issue
Only in 2006 Added in 2014 - No changes.

- Consider questions in light of - New Evidentiary Standard:
goal of catching all who could “must produce sufficiently
qualify convincing evidence that
- If reasonable doubt: decide in establishes the facts of the
favor of applicant case”
Added in 2014 - No changes.

- Must take country of origin
information (COI) into
consideration
- COI for torture must show
“evidence of gross, flagrant,
or mass violations of human
rights”.
Added in 2014 - No changes.

- New 3-Pronged Test:
Testimony must be
1) Credible,
2) Persuasive, and
3) Refer to specific facts
Credibility
- Standard: “applicant must - Standard: “applicant must - “totality of the circumstances”  (page 13) “A. Credibility Standard”
establish that there is a establish that there is a language
significant possibility that the significant possibility that the replaces “significant possibility…could  Adds text (changes in bold):
assertions underlying his or her assertions underlying his or her be found credible” and “substantial and - The asylum officer should assess the credibility of the assertions underlying the applicant’s
claim could be found credible claim could be found credible realistic possibility…will be found claim to be a refugee entitled to asylum, considering the totality of the circumstances,

in a full asylum or WOR in a full asylum or WOR credible” language (p. 18). including other statements made by the applicant, evidence of country conditions, State
hearing.” hearing.” Department reports, and all other relevant facts and evidence, and all relevant factors.”
 Adds Footnote (1) and (2):

(1) If the order in Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018). is lifted, then
officers must additionally follow the following guidelines:
"The asylum officer should also apply
the case law of the relevant federal
circuit court, together with the
applicable precedents of the Attorney
General and the BIA. The BIA defers to
precedents of the circuit in which the
removal proceedings took place. Matter
of Anselmo, 20 I. & N. Dec. 25, 31 (BIA
1989), except in certain special
situations. See Id.; see also Nat’l Cable
Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X
Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005).
(holding prior judicial constraint of
statute trumps agency construction
otherwise entitled to Chevron deference
only if prior court decision holds that its
construction is required by
unambiguous terms of statute and
leaves no room for agency discretion).”
(2) If the order in Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018) is lifted, this policy
will no longer apply. Officers will be required to apply the law in the circuit in which the alien
is located.
 Prior text (changes in bold) 

“The U.S. Supreme Court has held that to properly consider the totality of the
circumstances, "the whole picture ... must be taken into account." The Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) has interpreted this to include taking into account the whole
of the applicant's testimony as well as the individual circumstances of each applicant.”
explained that the burden of proof is upon the applicant for asylum to establish that the

reasonable person in her circumstances would fear persecution upon return to her
home country on account of one of the give grounds specified in the Act. The applicant
may satisfy the burden through a combination of credible testimony and the
introduction of documentary evidence and background information that supports the
claim.”
- “Evaluating Credibility in a Credible  (page 14) “B. Evaluating Credibility in a Credible Fear Interview”:
Fear Interview, General Considerations”
 removes first paragraph and sentence  Prior text “1. General Considerations, paragraph c” (changes in changes in bold):
that used to exist in paragraph b. stating - The applicant's ability or inability to provide detailed descriptions of specific facts the
that this is a screening and that the IJ is main points of the claim is critical to the credibility evaluation.”
ultimately the one to make the
determination whether an applicant is  Eliminates text:
credible (p. 18). - The applicant's willingness and ability to provide those descriptions may be directly related
to the asylum officer's skill at placing the applicant at ease and eliciting all the information
- Removes “relevant to the claim” necessary to make a proper decision. An asylum officer should be cognizant of the fact that
language and permits reliance on “all an applicant's ability to provide such descriptions may be impacted by the context and nature
information” instead of “all information of the credible fear screening process.”
relevant to the claim” (p. 18).
 Adds text:
- “General Considerations, paragraph c.” - An applicant may claim that his or her ability to identify such facts is impacted by the
 Replaces the final paragraph from the context and nature of the credible fear screenings, but the INA requires the applicant to
2014 plan that confirms that any identify such facts in order to satisfy his or her burden of proof. It is the job of the asylum
unresolved questions about credibility officer to determine whether that burden has been met.
should not be the basis of a negative
finding as long as there is a significant  Eliminates text:
possibility of a positive credibility - subsection (a) “Identifying Credibility Concerns” under “2. Properly Identifying and
finding by an IJ. (pp. 18-19). Probing Credibility Concerns During the Credible Fear Interview”
- “Identifying credibility concerns” 

Adds paragraph a. requiring asylum
officers to take into account “the same
factors considered in evaluating
credibility in the affirmative asylum
context.” (p.19).

- Duty to consider totality of - Duty to consider totality of - Adds language emphasizing the  (page 15) Prior text (changes in bold):
circumstances and all relevant circumstances and all relevant importance of detail and saying the - The amount of detail provided by an applicant is another factor that should be considered in
factors factors amount of detail provided by an making a credibility determination. In order to rely on "lack of detail" as a credibility
applicant is a factor that “should be factor, however, asylum officers must pose questions to the applicant regarding the type
considered in making a credibility of detail sought. The INA requires an applicant to identify “specific facts.” That can be
determination.” (p. 19). done by asking specific, probing questions that seek to elicit specific facts from the
applicant.
- Replaces language in 2014 that
emphasized the “limited scope” of the
CF screening interview for making
negative credibility findings and
language in 2014 that stated negative
credibility findings would be “less
prevalent” in the CF process. (p. 19).
- Removes distinction from 2014

between the asylum context and credible
fear context. (see p. 18 of 2014 and p.
19 of 2017).
- Consider demeanor, - Consider demeanor, - “Demeanor, candor, responsiveness…”  Eliminates text:

consistency, plausibility, consistency, plausibility, paragraph revised to make it a full - While demeanor, candor, responsiveness, and detail provided are to be taken into account in
falsehoods, etc. falsehoods, etc. credibility determination. Distinction the credible fear context when making a credibility determination, an asylum officer must
between asylum vs. credible fear also take into account cross-cultural factors, effects of trauma, and the nature of expedited
contexts also removed. Specifically, the removal and the credible fear interview process-including detention, relatively brief and often
“limited reliability” reference and telephonic interviews, etc.--when evaluating these factors in the credible fear context.
limited ability to evaluate these factors - b. Informing the Applicant of the Concern and Giving the Applicant an Opportunity to
in the CF context reference were Explain
removed. (p. 19). - When credibility concerns present themselves during the course of the credible fear
interview, the applicant must be given an opportunity to address and explain them. The
asylum officer must follow up on all credibility concerns by making the applicant aware of
each portion of the testimony, or his or her conduct, that raises credibility concerns, and the
reasons the applicant's credibility is in question. The asylum officer must clearly record in the
interview notes the questions used to inform the applicant of any relevant credibility issues,
and the applicant's responses to those questions.

- Consider factors that may - Consider factors that may - No change.
make applicant appear not make applicant appear not
credible credible
- Factors contributing to - Factors contributing to - “Assessing Credibility in Credible Fear  (page 15) “C. Assessing Credibility in Credible Fear when Making a Credible Fear
appearance of lack of appearance of lack of when Making a Credible Fear Determination”
credibility: trauma, passage of credibility: trauma, passage of Determination”  paragraph 1 revised
time, vulnerability, cultural time, vulnerability, cultural and to replace “significant possibility”  (paragraph 1) Adds text (changes in bold):
and communication communication differences, language with “totality of the - In assessing credibility, the officer must consider the totality of the circumstances and all
differences, interpretation, interpretation, unfamiliarity circumstances” language. (p. 20) relevant factors, including any reports or data available to the officer regarding
unfamiliarity with the phone with the phone system or conditions in the country or region regarding which the applicant claims a fear of
system or interpreter, etc. interpreter, etc. - Paragraph 2 revised to say “whether return. Credibility determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis, requiring the
the assertions underlying the applicant’s officer to consider the totality of the circumstances provided by the applicant’s
claim are credible” rather than testimony and all relevant country conditions information available to the officer.
“significant possibility...in a
full…hearing.” (p. 20)  Eliminates text:
- When considering the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the assertions
underlying the applicant's claim are credible, the following factors must be considered as they
may impact an applicant's ability to present his or her claim:
(i) trauma the applicant has endured;
(ii) passage of a significant amount of time since the described events occurred;
(iii) certain cultural factors, and the challenges inherent in cross-cultural communication;
(iv) detention of the applicant;
(v) problems between the interpreter and the applicant, including problems resulting from
differences in dialect or accent, ethnic or class differences, or other differences that may
affect the objectivity of the interpreter or the applicant's comfort level; and
(vi) unfamiliarity with speaker phone technology, the use of an interpreter the applicant
cannot see, or the use of an interpreter that the applicant does not know personally.
 (paragraph 2) New language:

Officers should refer to all relevant country conditions reports made available to USCIS by
the Department of State or other intelligence sources to assess whether the applicant’s claims
are credible and plausible in the regions in which the applicant claims they have or will
occur, as well as to assess whether an applicant could relocate to another area of his or her
home country in order to avoid the alleged persecution. If such internal relocation is
reasonable, claims that are inconsistent with country conditions reports or are indicative of
“boilerplate” language used in credible fear claims by applicants in different proceedings

might be valid indications of fraud supporting an adverse credibility finding, although the
applicant should be given the opportunity to explain.
- See Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2015).
 (paragraph 3) Prior text (changes bold):

The asylum officer must have followed should follow up on all credibility concerns during
the interview by making the applicant aware of each concern, and the reasons the
applicant's testimony is in question bases for questioning the applicant’s testimony. The
officer should give the applicant must have been given an opportunity to address and
explain all such concerns during the credible fear interview.
- Applicant must have - Applicant must have - new language for paragraph 4  2014  (paragraph 4) Eliminates text 
opportunity to address opportunity to address version more explicit that minor Generally, trivial or minor credibility concerns in and of themselves will not be sufficient to
inconsistencies inconsistencies concerns are “not sufficient,” again find an applicant not credible.
requires a full credibility finding (rather Nonetheless, on occasion such credibility concerns may be sufficient to support a negative
- Minor/trivial inconsistencies - Minor/trivial inconsistencies than significant possibility an IJ would credible fear determination considering the totality of the circumstances and all relevant
irrelevant; material may lead to irrelevant; material may lead to find credible), makes it seem like factors. Such concerns should only be the basis of a negative determination if the officer
denial denial inconsistencies do not have to be attempted to elicit sufficient testimony, and the concerns were not adequately resolved by the
material to lead to a negative credibility applicant during the credible fear interview.
finding (p. 21).
- Negative credibility finding: - Negative credibility finding:
- Applicant fails to provide - Applicant fails to provide  (paragraph 4) New language:
reasonable explanation of reasonable explanation of As recommended by Congress in enacting the REAL ID Act of 2005, in making credibility
inconsistencies inconsistencies determinations, asylum officers should “rely on those aspects of demeanor that are indicative
- No significant possibility - No significant possibility of truthfulness or deception… [and] a credibility determination should follow an
applicant could successfully applicant could successfully examination of all relevant circumstances, including the circumstances of the individual
address before IJ address before IJ applicant.
- Duty to probe inconsistencies - Duty to probe inconsistencies - Again replaces “significant possibility”  (paragraph 5) Prior text (changes in bold):
with CBP statements taken at with CBP statements taken at the applicant could be credible language The sworn statement completed by CBP (Form I-867A/B) is not intended, however, to does
border; I-867B not intended to border; I-867B not intended to with “totality of the circumstances” the not always record detailed information about any fear of persecution or torture, or other
elicit detail elicit detail applicant is credible language (p. 21). general information, such as the reason the individual came to the United States. The
- Note added: some CBP Takes away reference to IJ decision interview statement is intended to record whether or not the individual has a fear, not
officers do elicit details, and following a full hearing. Takes away the nature or details surrounding that fear. However, in some cases, the asylum officer
specific reference to considering the may find that the CBP officer did, in fact, gather additional information from the applicant

AO can use to guide questions applicant’s explanation for regarding the nature of his or her claim. In such cases, the applicant's prior statements can
and probe inconsistencies with CBP/ICE inform the asylum officer's line of questioning in the credible fear interview, and any
statements. inconsistencies between these prior statements and the statements being made during the
credible fear interview should be probed and assessed in determining the applicant’s
- Adds 7th Circuit Moab v. Gonzales case credibility.
reference and quote. (pp. 21-22). Adds - Matter of J-C-H-F-, 27 I&N Dec. 211 (BIA 2018).
additional citations from 1st and 9th
circuits (p. 22).  Eliminates text:
“A number of federal courts have cautioned adjudicators to keep in mind the circumstances
- Expands use of Ramsameachire v. under which an alien's statement to a CBP official is taken when considering whether an
Ashcroft from 2nd Circuit. Adds a quote applicant's later testimony is consistent with the earlier statement. For instance, the Seventh
in the main text and replaces the 2014 Circuit noted, '"airport interviews ... are not always reliable indicators of credibility."' In
parenthetical in the citation in the margin addition, the Fourth Circuit identified the different purposes of CBP' s interview for the
with a new parenthetical. Generally, the sworn statement and the asylum process: "the purpose of these [sworn statement) interviews
new language in the text and in the is to collect general identification and background information about the alien. The
citation seems to encourage a negative interviews are not part of the formal asylum process."
credibility finding and reliance upon
inconsistencies between CBP/ICE Moab v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 656, 660 (7th Cir. 2007) (internal citations omitted). Qing Hua
interview statements and the CF Lin v. Holder, 736 F.3d 343, 353 (4th Cir. 2013).
interview. Specifically, the 2014
parenthetical that was replaced had Some factors to keep in mind include: I) whether the questions posed at the port of entry or
language emphasizing the “limitations place of apprehension were designed to elicit the details of an asylum claim, and whether the
inherent in the initial interview process.” immigration officer asked relevant follow-up questions; 2) whether the alien was reluctant or
That language is no longer part of the afraid to reveal information during the first meeting with U.S. officials because of past abuse;
lesson plan. (p. 22). and 3) whether the interview was conducted in a language other than the applicant's native
language.
See, e.g., Balasubramanrim v. INS, 143 F .3d 157 (3d Cir. 1998); Lin Lin Tang v. U.S. Att'y
Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2009); c.f Ye Jian Xing v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 38, 44-45
(!st Cir. 2017) (while not requiring specifically enumerated factors for examining the
reliability of the sworn statement, noting that an interpreter was used and Ye
understood the questions asked); Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1243 (9th Cir. 2010) (in
examining statements in a prior bond hearing, noting,'"[w]e have rejected adverse
credibility findings that relied on differences between statements a petitioner made
during removal proceedings and those made during less formal, routinely unrecorded
proceedings.");.

The Second Circuit has advised: "If, after reviewing the record of the [CBP) interview in
light of these factors and any other relevant considerations suggested by the circumstances of
the interview, the ... [agency) concludes that the record of the interview and the alien's
statements are reliable, then the agency may, in appropriate circumstances, use those
statements as a basis for finding the alien's testimony incredible. Conversely, if it appears that
either the record of the interview or the alien's statements may not be reliable, then the ...
[agency) should not rely solely on the interview in making an adverse credibility
determination." Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 179-81 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding
that the BIA was entitled to rely on fundamental inconsistencies between the applicant's
airport interview statements and his hearing testimony where the applicant was
provided with an interpreter, given ample opportunity to explain his fear of persecution
in a careful and non-coercive interview, and signed and initialed the typed record of
statement).
6. All reasonable explanations must be considered when assessing the applicant's credibility.
The asylum officer need not credit an unreasonable explanation.
If, after providing the applicant with an opportunity to explain or resolve any credibility
concerns, the officer finds that the applicant has provided a reasonable explanation, a positive
credibility determination may be appropriate when considering the totality of the
circumstances and all relevant factors.
If, however, after providing the applicant with an opportunity to explain or resolve any
credibility concerns, the applicant fails to provide an explanation, or the officer finds that the
applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation, a negative credibility determination based
upon the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors will generally be appropriate.
Only in 2014 - “Reasonable explanations” paragraphs  Adds Footnote (3):
- Removes 2006 statement that  again, “totality of the circumstances” If the order in Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F.Supp, 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018), is lifted, then officers
clear probability not required language replaces “significant must additionally follow the following guidance:
- References to “totality of possibility” language. Again, requires a A number of federal courts have cautioned adjudicators to keep in mind the circumstances
circumstances” and duty to full credibility finding, rather than under which an alien’s statement to a CBP official is taken when considering whether an
consider “all relevant factors” emphasizing screening nature of the applicant's later testimony is consistent with the earlier statement. For instance, the Seventh
only emphasized in Credibility interview and fact that IJ will do the full Circuit noted that '"airport interviews… are not always reliable indicators of credibility."' In
portion of 2014 training; credibility finding after full hearing. (p. addition, the Fourth Circuit identified the different purposes of CBP’s interview for the sworn
emphasized throughout 2006 23). statement and the asylum process” “the purpose of these [sworn statement] interviews is to

collect general identification and background information about the alien. The interviews are
not pan of the formal asylum process. See. e.g. Balasubramanian v. INS, 143 F. 3d 157 (3d
Cir. 1998); Lin Lin Tang v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 578 F.3d 1270, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2009); cf. Ye
Jian Xing v. Lynch, 845 F.3d 28, 44-45 (1st Cir. 2017) (while not requiring specifically
enumerated factors for examining the reliability of the sworn statement, noting that an
interpreter was used and Ye understood the questions asked): Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d
1235, 1243 (9th Cir. 2010) (in examining statements in a prior bond hearing, noting, "[w]e
have rejected adverse credibility findings that relied on differences between statements a
petitioner made during removal proceedings and those made during less formal, routinely
unrecorded proceedings.").
Some factors to keep in mind include: I) whether the questions posed at the port of entry or
place of apprehension were designed to elicit the details of an asylum claim, and whether the
immigration officer asked relevant follow up questions; 2) whether the alien was reluctant or
afraid to reveal information during the first meeting with U.S. officials because of past abuse;
and 3) whether the interview was conducted in a language other than the applicant's native
language. Ramsameachire v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 169, 179-8 l (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that the
BIA was entitled to rely on fundamental inconsistencies between the applicant's airport
interview statements and his hearing testimony where the applicant was provided with an
interpreter, given ample opportunity to explain his fear of persecution in a careful and non-
coercive interview, and signed and initialed the typed record of statement).
The Second Circuit has advised: "If, after reviewing the record of the [CBP] interview in
light of these factors and any other relevant considerations suggested by the circumstances of
the interview, the… [agency] concludes that the record of the interview and the alien’s
statements are reliable, then the agency may, in appropriate circumstances, use those
statements as a basis for finding the alien’s testimony incredible. Conversely, if it appears
that either the record of the interview or the alien's statements may not be reliable, then the...
[agency] should not rely solely on the interview in making an adverse credibility
determination.''
All reasonable explanations must be considered when assessing the applicant's credibility.
The asylum officer need not credit an unreasonable explanation.
If, after providing the applicant with an opportunity to explain or resolve any credibility
concerns, the officer finds that the applicant has provided a reasonable explanation, for
inconsistencies between prior statements and statements made at the credible fear interview,
those inconsistencies alone need not preclude a positive credibility determination when
considering the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors.

If, however, after providing the applicant with an opportunity to explain or resolve any
credibility concerns, the applicant fails to provide an explanation for such inconsistencies, or
the officer finds that the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation, a negative
credibility determination based upon the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors
will generally be appropriate.”
 (page 17) “D. Documenting a Credibility Determination”:
 (paragraph 2) Adds text (changes in bold):

- The officer must specify in the written case analysis the basis for the negative credibility
finding, including a summary of the material facts as stated by the applicant, any
additional facts relied on by the officer, and the officer’s determination of whether, in
light of such facts, the alien has established a credible fear. In the case of a positive
credibility determination, the officer should not any specific portions of testimony that
contributed to the officer’s overall credibility determination, including specificity of the
presentation, consistency with corroborating evidence submitted or country conditions
reports made available and any other factors about the applicant’s narrative,
demeanor, or presentation that weighed in favor of a positive credibility
determination.”
 (paragraph 3) changes (changes in bold):

“If information that impugns the applicant's testimony becomes available after the interview
but prior to serving the credible fear determination, a follow-up interview must should be
scheduled to confront the applicant with the derogatory information and to provide the
applicant with an opportunity to address the adverse information.
- Unresolved credibility issues should not form the basis of a negative credibility
determination.
Establishing a Credible Fear of Persecution
General Considerations Mostly same general - No changes.  (page 18) “General Consideration in Credible Fear”:
- Persecution must be “on considerations, but vastly
account of” 1 of 5 protected expands other sections. Adds  (paragraph 1) Adds text:
grounds, and sub-section on “Motivation” … or withholding or removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act or deferral of removal, if the
- Protected ground must be at applicant subject to the mandatory denial of withholding of removal.
least one central reason

- Persecution must be “on  (paragraph 2) Adds text (changes in bold):
account of” 1/5 protected - In general, a finding that (1) there is a significant possibility – that is, a substantial and
grounds realistic possibility based on more than significant evidence – that the applicant
- Protected ground must be at experienced past persecution on account of a protected characteristic, (2) the conditions that
least one central reason gave rise to such persecution continue to exist in the applicant’s home country, and (3)
the applicant could not avoid such persecution by relocating within his or her home
country, is are sufficient to satisfy the credible fear standard. This is because the applicant
in such a case has shown a significant possibility of establishing that he or she is a
refugee under section 208 of the Act and a full asylum hearing provides the appropriate
venue to evaluate whether or not the applicant merits a favorable exercise of discretion
to grant asylum.
- Govt. unwilling or unable to - Persecutor must either be - No changes.  (paragraph 3) adds text (changes in bold):
control government agent, OR non- - However, if there is evidence so substantial that there is no does not establish a
govt. agent but govt. is significant possibility of future persecution, or other serious harm (italics eliminated) or
unwilling or unable to control that there are no compelling reasons to grant asylum based on for being unwilling or
- Inability to control not unable to return to the applicant’s home country given the severity of the past
required for whole country; just persecution, or reasons why internal relocation is not possible, a negative credible fear
locale of persecution determination may be appropriate.”
- Evidence required of attempt
to seek police protection, or
must provide reasonable
explanation why could not
- Provides examples of serious - Vastly expands list of types of - No changes.  (paragraph 4) adds text to end:
harm harm and level of analysis An applicant establishes that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution if a reasonable
- Violations of core human required: person in the applicant’s circumstances would fear persecution upon return to his or her
rights (genocide, slavery, - no serious injury required, but country of origin.
torture, detention, sexual physical harm relevant
violence) - serious threats  Adds Footnote (4):
- Cumulative acts of - violation of core human rights - Only aliens who have been found to have suffered past persecution are eligible for a grant
discrimination or (AE note: no explanation) of asylum based on “other serious harm.” See 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(1)(iii). If the alien
harassment → - Cumulative acts of demonstrates past persecution, he or she can be granted asylum if: 1) the applicant has also
consequences of a discrimination or harassment demonstrated compelling reasons for being unwilling or unable to return to the country
substantially prejudicial → consequences of a arising out of the severity of past persecution or if (2) the applicant has established that there
nature (restrictions on right substantially prejudicial nature is a reasonable possibility that he or she has suffered past persecution and either of the
to earn livelihood, - Brief detention for legitimate conditions described above exist, the alien could establish a credible fear of persecution.
education, privacy, law enforcement reasons is not

dwellings, enforced persecution, but mistreatment
inactivity, passport denial, in detention may
surveillance, pressure to be - Economic harm: must be 1)
informant, property deliberate 2) severe
confiscation, illegitimate - Psychological harm- personal
arrests/detention and emotional factors relevant
- Other types of harm or
physical abuse: economic,
psychological, forced
abortion
Past Harm Past Harm - No changes.  (page 19) “B. Past Persecution/Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution”:
- Significant possibility harm - Significant possibility harm  Order Change in 2019 Plan
amounted to persecution amounted to persecution
- Generally, past harm is - Generally, past harm is  2017 plan separates “B. Past Persecution” and “C. Well-Founded Fear of Persecution” in
sufficient sufficient 2 sections 
- Harm must be serious, - Negative finding if:  B. Past Persecution:
identifiable, and assessed for - No possibility of past (1) Severity of Harm (2) Motivation
individual harm, or (3) Persecutor
- Negative finding if - No reason to grant based  C. Well-Founded Fear of Persecution:
- No possibility of future on severity of past harm (3) The Mogharrabi Test (4) Pattern or
harm, or Practice (5) Persecution of Individuals
- No reason to grant based Closely Related to the Applicant
on severity of past harm (6) Threats Without Harm
(7) Applicant Remains in Country
After Threats or Harm
(8) Return to Country of Persecution
(9) Internal Relocation
 2019 plan combines sections 

 B. Past Persecution/Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution”:
(1) Elements Required to Establish a
Credible Fear (2) Severity of Harm
(3) Future Fear (Well-Founded Fear)
(4) Motivation (5) Persecutor
(6) Applicant Did Not Remain in

Country after Threats or Harm
(7) Applicant Has Not Acted
Inconsistent with Subjective Fear of
Persecution (8) Internal Relocation
 (paragraph 1) Adds text:

1. Elements Required to Establish a Credible Fear: In order to establish a credible fear of
persecution, the applicant must establish each one of the elements below, to the satisfaction
of the asylum officer. If the applicant is not able to establish all of the elements, the applicant
must receive a negative credible fear determination.
 (paragraph 2) 2. Severity of Harm:
a. There is no requirement that an individual suffer serious injuries to be found to have
suffered persecution. However, the presence or absence of physical harm is relevant in
determining whether the harm suffered by the applicant rises to the level of persecution.
b. Serious threats made against an applicant may constitute persecution even if the applicant
was never physically harmed.
c. Violations of "core" or "fundamental" human rights, prohibited by international law, may
constitute harm amounting to persecution.
d. While less preferential treatment and other forms of discrimination and harassment
generally are not considered persecution, discrimination or harassment may amount to
persecution if the adverse practices accumulate or increase in severity to the extent that it
leads to consequences of a substantially prejudicial nature. Asylum officers should evaluate
the entire scope of harm experienced by the applicant to determine if he or she was
persecuted, taking into account the individual circumstances of each case.
e. Generally, a brief detention, for legitimate law enforcement reasons, without mistreatment,
will not constitute persecution. Prolonged detention is a deprivation of liberty, which may
constitute a violation of a fundamental human right and amount to persecution. Evidence of
mistreatment during detention also may establish persecution.
f. To rise to the level of persecution, economic harm must be deliberately imposed and
severe.
g. Psychological harm alone may rise to the level of persecution. Evidence of the applicant's
psychological and emotional characteristics, such as the applicant's age or trauma suffered as

a result of past harm, are relevant to determining whether psychological harm amounts to
persecution.
h. Rape and other severe forms of sexual harm constitute harm amounting to persecution, as
they are forms of serious physical harm.
i. Harm to an applicant's family member or another third party may constitute persecution of
the applicant where the harm is serious enough to amount to persecution, and also where the
persecutor's motivation in harming the third party is to act against the applicant.
Nexus “Motivation” - No changes.  (page 21) (paragraph 4)
- Significant possibility that - Significant possibility 4. Motivation
possession of at least one applicant will be able to
protected ground is at least one establish persecutor motivated  Eliminates text:
central reason for persecution on account of protected ground, b. A “punitive” or “malignant” intent is not required for harm to constitute persecution.
- AO duty to explore all nexus must be at least one central Persecution can consist of objectively serious harm or suffering that was inflicted because of
possibilities reason. a characteristic (or perceived characteristic) of the victim, regardless of whether the
- Nexus must be identifiable - Nexus: 1) possession of persecutor intended the victim to experience the harm as harm.
and articulable protected ground c. The applicant does not bear the burden of establishing the persecutor's exact motivation.
- Evidence on nexus direct or 2) “on account of” For cases where no nexus to a protected ground is immediately apparent, the asylum officer
circumstantial - Punitive intent not required in credible fear interviews should ask questions related to all five grounds to ensure that no
- AO duty to explore all nexus nexus issues are overlooked.
possibilities d. Although the applicant bears the burden of proof to establish a nexus between the harm
- Applicant: BOP to establish and the protected ground, asylum officers have an affirmative duty to elicit all information
nexus between harm and relevant to the nexus determination. Evidence of motive can be either direct or circumstantial.
protected ground Reasonable inferences regarding the motivations of persecutors should be made, taking into
AO: affirmative duty to elicit consideration the culture and patterns of persecution within the applicant's country of origin
all info on motive and any relevant country of origin information, especially if the applicant is having difficulty
- Evidence on motive direct or answering questions regarding motivation.
circumstantial e. There is no requirement that the persecutor be motivated only by the protected belief or
characteristic of the applicant. As long as there is a significant possibility that at least one
central reason motivating the persecutor is the applicant's possession or perceived possession
of a protected characteristic, the applicant may establish the harm is
"on account of' a protected characteristic in the credible fear context.”
 Adds text Motivation (b):

- There must be a significant possibility that at least one reason motivating the persecutor is
the applicant’s possession or perceived possession of a protected characteristic.

 Adds Footnote (5):
If the injunction in Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018), is lifted, then
officers must instead follow the following guidance:
There must be a significant possibility that at least one central reason motivating the
persecutor is the applicant’s possession or perceived possession of a protected characteristic.
In the Ninth Circuit, the alien need only establish a significant possibility that at least a
reason motiving the persecutor is the applicant’s possession or perceived possession of a
protected characteristic. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017).
- Internal relocation/internal 2014 adds IFA analysis (to - No changes.  Order change from 2017 plan  “Internal Relocation” moved down to (paragraph 8) of
flight alternative (IFA) is WFF of future harm) “B. Past Persecution/Well-Founded Fear of Future Persecution”
generally not relevant when - If government is persecutor,
claim is based on past no IFA analysis  (page 24) (paragraph 8) 
persecution - But, presumption 8. Internal Relocation:
- Says nothing about IFA in rebuttable by preponderance
future harm analysis that IFA possible and  (paragraph 8(a)) Adds text:
reasonable Asylum officers must consult all available and salient information, including information in
- If persecutor is non- the objective conditions set forth in Department of State country reports.
government actor: significant
possibility applicant can show  Prior text (changes in bold):
no IFA possibility b. If the persecutor is a non-governmental entity, there must be a significant possibility that
- IFA Determination: Must be: the applicant can demonstrate that there is no reasonable internal relocation option
- Possible (safe) cannot reasonably internally relocate within his or her country. In cases in which the
- Reasonable under all persecutor is a non-governmental entity and the applicant has not established past
circumstances persecution, the applicant has the burden of establishing that internal relocation is not
- social/cultural constraints, reasonable.
geographic barriers,
administrative/judicial/econ  (paragraph c (ii)) Adds text (changes in bold):
omic infrastructure making (ii). Determine whether an applicant’s relocations, under all circumstances, would be
it difficult for applicant to reasonable. Some factors that could be considered—but are in no way controlling or
live in another part of determinative—are listed in 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3).
country, civil strife, danger
of other serious harm not  Eliminates text:
amounting to persecution d. In determining the reasonableness of internal relocation in relation to a well-founded fear
claim, asylum officers should consider the following factors:

(i) Whether the applicant would face other serious harm that may not be inflicted on account
of one of the five protected grounds in the refugee definition, but is so serious that it equals
the severity of persecution;
(ii) Any ongoing civil strife such as a civil war occurring in parts of the country;
(iii) Administrative, economic, or judicial infrastructure that may make it very difficult for an
individual to live in another part of the country;
(iv) Geographical limitations that could present barriers to accessing a safe part of a country
or where an individual would have difficulty surviving due to the geography;
(v) Social and cultural constraints such as age, gender, health, and social and familial ties or
whether the applicant possess a characteristic, such as a particular language or a unique
physical appearance, that would readily distinguish the applicant from the general population
and affect his or her safety in the new location; and
(vi) any other factors specific to the case that would make it unreasonable for the applicant to
relocate should be considered. There is no requirement that an applicant first attempt to
relocate in his or her country before flight. However, the fact that an applicant lived safely in
another part of his or her country for a significant period of time before leaving the country
may be evidence that the threat of persecution does not exist countrywide, and that the
applicant can reasonably relocate within the country to avoid future persecution.
- Other factors irrelevant to - Missing 2006 paragraphs - No changes.
past harm: stating
- Risk of future harm - Risk of future harm (in
- Changed circumstances past persecution analysis)
- Changed circumstances
are irrelevant to past harm
analysis
* Note to be aware of novel Particular Social Group: - Removed reference and citation to  (page 22) under (4) Motivation 
legal issues like PSG Significant Changes circuit court cases that have rejected the (c) Particular Social Groups
- If no precedent on point when Board of Immigration Appeals’
determining PSG, must apply application of social distinction as a  Eliminates text:
BIA guidelines for PSG found requirement for establishing a viable f. Particular Social Groups: The area of law surrounding particular social groups is evolving
in Matter of M-E-V-G- Matter particular social group. (p. 28 in 2017 rapidly, and it is important for asylum officers to be informed about current DHS and Asylum
of W-G-R-: vs. p. 26 in 2014). Division guidance, as well as current case law and regulatory changes.
- Common, immutable To determine whether the applicant belongs to a viable particular social group where there
characteristic are no precedent decisions on point, asylum officers must
- Particularity analyze the facts using the BIA test for evaluating whether a group meets the definition of a
- Social distinction particular social group:

(i) First, the group must comprise individuals who share a common, immutable characteristic,
which is either a characteristic that members cannot change or is a characteristic that is so
fundamental to the member's identity or conscience that he or she should not be required to
change it.
(ii) Second, the group must be defined with particularity; it "must be defined by
characteristics that provide a clear benchmark for determining who falls within the group."
(iii) Third, the group must be socially distinct within the society in question. Social
distinction involves examining whether "those with the characteristic in the society in
question would be meaningfully distinguished from those who do not have it." Social
distinction relates to society's, not the persecutor's, though the persecutor's perceptions may
be relevant to social distinction.
 Replaces text:
To determine whether the applicant belongs to a legally viable particular social group where
there are no precedent decision on point, asylum officers must analyze the facts using the
immutability requirement described in Matter of Acosta. The group must compromise
individuals who share a common, immutable characteristic, which is either a characteristic
that members cannot change or is a characteristic that is so fundamental to the member’s
identity or conscience that he or she should not be required to change it.
 Adds Footnote (6):

If the injunction in Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp. 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018) is lifted, then
officers must instead follow the following guidance:
To determine whether the applicant belongs to a viable particular social group where there
are no precedent decisions on point, asylum officers must analyze the facts using the BIA test
for evaluating whether a group meets the definition of a particular social group, which is the
immutability requirement described in Matter of Acosta:
First, the group must comprise individuals who share a common, immutable characteristic,
which is either a characteristic that members cannot change or is a characteristic that is so
fundamental to the member's identity or conscience that he or she should not be required to
change it.
Second, the group must be defined with particularity; it “must be defined by characteristics
that provide a clear benchmark for determining who falls within the group." A group is
particular if the "'group can accurately be described in a manner sufficiently distinct that the
group would be recognized, in the society in question, as a discrete class of persons.” A

particular social group must not be “amorphous, overbroad. diffuse, or subjective,” and not
every 'immutable characteristic' is sufficiently precise to define a particular social group."
Third, the group must be socially distinct within the society in question. Social distinction
involves examining whether "those with the characteristic in the society in question would be
meaningfully distinguished from those who do not have it.” In other words, "[m]embers of a
particular social group will generally understand their own affiliation with that group, as will
other people in their country." Social distinction relates to society’s, not the persecutor's,
perception, though the persecutor's perceptions may be relevant to social distinction. See
Matter of A-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 316. 320 (AG 2018); Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I&N Dec. 227
(BIA 2014); Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I&N Dec. 208 (BIA 2014).
Well-founded fear of future Well-Founded Fear of Future - No changes.  (page 19) (paragraph 3) 
harm Persecution 3. Future Fear/Well-Founded Fear:
- When no evidence of past - When no evidence of past
harm, evaluate for future harm harm, evaluate for future harm  Eliminates text:
- SOP: Significant possibility - SOP: Significant possibility I. When an applicant does not claim to have suffered any past harm or where the evidence is
that applicant will be able to that applicant will be able to insufficient to establish a significant possibility of past persecution on account of a protected
show reasonable possibility show reasonable possibility that characteristic under section 101 (a)(42)(A) of the Act, the asylum officer must determine
that he will be persecuted on he will be persecuted on whether there is a significant possibility the applicant could establish a well-founded fear of
account of a protected account of a protected persecution under section 208 of the Act.
characteristic. characteristic. 2. To establish a well-founded fear of persecution on account of a protected characteristic, an
applicant must show that he or she has: I) a subjective fear of persecution; and 2) that the fear
has an objective basis.
a. The applicant satisfies the subjective element if he or she credibly articulates a genuine
fear of return. Fear has been defined as an apprehension or awareness of danger.
b. The applicant will meet the credible fear standard based on a fear of future harm if there is
a significant possibility that he or she could establish that there is
a reasonable possibility that he or she will be persecuted on account of a protected ground
upon return to his or her country of origin.
3. The Mogharrabi Test: Matter of Mogharrabi lays out a four-part test for determining well-
founded fear. To
establish a credible fear of persecution on account of a protected characteristic based on
future harm, there must be a significant possibility that the applicant can establish each of the
following elements:
a. Possession (or imputed possession of a protected characteristic)
(i) The applicant must possess, or be believed to possess, a protected characteristic that the
persecutor seeks to overcome. The BIA later modified this definition and explicitly

recognized that a "punitive" or "malignant" intent is not required for harm to constitute
persecution. The BIA concluded that persecution can consist of objectively serious harm or
suffering that is inflicted because of a characteristic (or perceived characteristic) of the
victim, regardless of whether the persecutor intends the victim to experience the harm as
harm.
(ii) This analysis requires officers to determine: (I) whether the applicant possesses or is
perceived to possess a protected characteristic; and (2) whether the persecution or feared
persecution is on account of that protected characteristic.
(iii) For cases where no nexus to a protected ground is immediately apparent, the asylum
officer in credible fear interviews must ask questions related to all five grounds to ensure that
no nexus issues are overlooked.
(iv) Asylum officers have an affirmative duty to elicit all information relevant to the nexus
determination. Officers should make reasonable inferences, keeping in mind the difficulty, in
many cases, of establishing with precision a persecutor's motives.
(v) To determine whether the applicant belongs to a viable particular social group where there
are no precedent decisions on point, asylum officers must analyze the facts using the BIA test
for evaluating whether a group meets the definition of a particular social group.
b. Awareness (the persecutor is aware or could become aware the applicant possesses the
characteristic)
(i) Relevant lines of inquiry include: how someone would know or recognize that the
applicant had the protected characteristic and how the persecutor would know that the
applicant had returned to his or her country.
(ii) The applicant is not required to hide his or her possession of a protected characteristic in
order to avoid awareness.
c. Capability (the persecutor has the capability to persecute the applicant)
(i) If the persecutor is a governmental entity, asylum officers should consider the extent of
the government's power or authority and whether the applicant can seek protection from
another government entity within the country.
(ii) If the persecutor is a non-governmental entity, relevant factors include: the extent to
which the government is able or willing to control the entity, whether the government is able
to or would want to protect the applicant; whether the applicant reported the non-
governmental actor to the police; and whether the police or government could or would offer
any protection to the applicant.
(iii) The extent to which the persecutor has the ability to enforce his or her will throughout
the country is also relevant when evaluating whether the persecutor is capable of persecuting
the applicant.

d. Inclination (the persecutor has the inclination to persecute the applicant)
(i) Factors to consider when evaluating inclination include: any previous threats or harm from
the persecutor, the persecutor's treatment of individuals similarly situated to the applicant
who have remained in the home country or who have returned to the home country, and any
time passed between the last threats received and flight from his or her home country.
(ii) For both capability and inclination, if the applicant is unable to answer questions
regarding whether the persecutor is capable or inclined to persecute him or her, the asylum
officer may use country of origin information to help determine the persecutor's capability
and inclination to persecute the applicant.
4. Pattern or Practice:
a. The applicant need not show that he or she will be singled out individually for persecution,
if the applicant shows a significant possibility that he or she could establish:
(i) There is a pattern or practice of persecution on account of any of the protected grounds of
a group of persons similarly situated to the applicant.
(ii) The applicant is included in and is identified with the persecuted group, such that a
reasonable person in the applicant's position would fear persecution.
5. Persecution of Individuals Closely Related to the Applicant: The persecution of family
members or other individuals closely associated with the applicant may provide objective
evidence that the applicant's fear of future persecution is well-founded, even if there is no
pattern or practice of persecution of such individuals. On the other hand, continued safety of
individuals similarly situated to the applicant may, in some cases, be evidence that the
applicant's fear is not well-founded. Furthermore, the applicant must establish some
connection between such persecution and the persecution the applicant fears.
6. Threats without Harm: A threat (anonymous or otherwise) may also be sufficient to
establish a well-founded fear of persecution. The evidence must show that the threat is
serious and that there is a reasonable possibility the threat will be carried out.
 (paragraph d) Adds text:

- The applicant satisfies the objective element if he or she demonstrates past persecution
based on continuing country conditions, or has a “well-founded fear” of persecution. An
applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution if a reasonable person in the applicant’s
circumstances would fear persecution upon return to his or her country of origin.
The Supreme Court concluded that the standard for establishing the likelihood of future
harm in asylum is lower than the standard for establishing likelihood of future harm in
withholding of deportation: "One can certainly have a well-founded fear of an event
happening when there is less than a 50% chance of the occurrence taking place."

To make the point, Cardoza-Fonseca used the following example: ''In a country where
every tenth adult male is put to death or sent to a labor camp, 'it would be only too apparent
that anyone who has managed to escape from the country in question will have 'well-founded
fear of being persecuted' upon his eventual return.'"
Cardoza-Fonseca did not, however, hold that "well-founded fear" always equals a ten
percent chance. Instead, Cardoza-Fonseca deemed the term "ambiguous," and explicitly
declined to set forth guidance on how the well-founded fear test should be applied. The Court
merely held that the government was "incorrect in holding that the two standards [i.e., well-
founded fear and clear probability] are identical" and invited the affected agencies to
expound on the meaning of "well-founded fear.”
Cardoza-Fonscca's extreme example of every tenth adult male being put to death or sent to
a labor camp may well satisfy this standard in a particular case (assuming that all other
requirements are met, including nexus), but officers must bear in mind the unusual severity of
this example. While the Cardoza-Fonseca example seems simple, the Court describes an
extremely unusual and high murder rate of 10 percent of adult males. It is important for
officers to note that such rate is extraordinarily high and incredibly rare. Indeed, it is
significantly higher than the murder rates in countries with even the highest rates of violence.
Additionally, the asylum officer must determine whether the applicant's testimony supports
an objective finding that the applicant, himself or herself, will be persecuted, which requires a
more extensive analysis than whether persecution is occurring at all in the country of origin.
In doing that, the asylum officers must also determine whether any objective fear claimed by
the applicant is credible. The officer may well find that a claimed rate of 10% chance of
persecution, in light of the applicant's statements and the country conditions available to the
officer, is not credible. It is important to note also that rarely will an applicant be able to
demonstrate, with certainty, the rates of people being persecuted countrywide.
After Cardoza-Fonseca, neither the Board of Immigration Appeals nor DHS has
definitively resolved how much fear is "well-founded." There is thus no single, binding
interpretation of Cardoza-Fonseca's discussion of "well-founded fear," including its
suggestions about a one-in-ten chance.
Thus, the determination of whether a fear is well-founded does not ultimately rest on the
statistical probability of persecution, which is almost never available. Rather, the
determination rests on whether the applicant's fear is based on facts that would lead a
reasonable person in similar circumstances to fear persecution.
- Duty to elicit info on 4 Greatly expands analysis - No changes.  (page 22) (paragraph 5) 
prongs of Mogharrabi test for required in 4-pronged 5. Persecutor:
well-foundedness: Mogharrabi WFF Test

- Possession - Possession of protected  Eliminates text:
- Awareness, characteristic persecutor seeks a. Evidence that the government is unwilling or unable to control the persecutor could include
- Capability, to overcome a failure to investigate reported acts of violence, a refusal to make a report of acts of violence
- Inclination - Actual or imputed or harassment, closing investigations on bases clearly not supported by the circumstances of
- Malignant intent not the case, statements indicating an unwillingness to protect certain victims of crimes, and
req’d evidence that other similar allegations of violence go uninvestigated.
- Persecutor’s awareness of
protected characteristic  Prior Text (changes in bold):
- Instructs proper inquiry b. Asylum officers must recognize that no government can guarantee the safety of each of
is: how would its citizens or control all potential persecutors at all times. It is not sufficient for an
persecutor find out applicant to assert that the government lacks sufficient resources to address criminal
applicant possesses activity. Rather the government must have abdicated its responsibility to control
protected ground or persecution. A determination of whether a government is unable to control the entity that
applicant returned to harmed the applicant requires evaluation of country of origin information and the applicant's
country? circumstances. For example, a government in the midst of a civil war or one that is unable to
- Not required to hide exercise its authority over portions of the country might be unable to control the persecutor in
protected ground areas of the country where its influence does not extend. Asylum officers must consult all
- Persecutor’s capability to available and salient information, including the objective country conditions set forth in
persecute Department of State country reports. In order to establish a significant possibility of past
- Requires analysis of persecution, the applicant is not required to demonstrate that the government was unable or
govt’s authority unwilling to control the persecution on a nationwide basis. The applicant may meet his or her
- Lists factors to analyze burden with evidence that the government was unable or unwilling to control the persecution
if non-govt: in the specific locale where the applicant was persecuted to which the applicant was
- If govt controls subject.
entity
- If govt. wants to  Eliminates text:
protect applicant c. To demonstrate that the government is unable or unwilling to protect an applicant, the
- If applicant tried to applicant must show that he or she sought the protection of the government, or provide a
report to police reasonable explanation as to why he or she did not seek that protection. Reasonable
- Does entity control explanations for not seeking government
whole country? protection include evidence that the government has shown itself unable or unwilling to act in
- Persecutor’s inclination to similar situations or that the applicant would have increased
persecute his or her risk by affirmatively seeking protection. In determining whether an applicant's
- Lists factors: previous failure to seek protection is reasonable, asylum officers should consult and consider country
threats, similarly of origin information, in addition to the applicant's testimony.
situated people, time

passed from
persecution
- “May” use COI to
determine
capability/inclination
- Pattern or practice against Applicant need not show he - No changes.
similarly situated sufficient; no would be singled out if can
need to show will be singled show:
out. 1) Pattern/practice against
similarly situated
2) The applicant is
identified w/the
persecuted group
Added to 2014 for WFF - No changes.  (page 23) (paragraph 7) 
- Persecution of individuals 7. Applicant Has Not Acted Inconsistent with Subjective Fear of Persecution:
close to applicant sufficient
- Threats without harm-  Language changed from “Return to Country of Persecution” in 2017 plan
sufficient if serious and
reasonable possibility  Eliminates text:
- If applicant remains in - Consideration must be given to the reasons the applicant returned and what happened to the
country for length of time after applicant once he or she returned. Return to the country of feared persecution does not
persecution or returns to necessarily defeat an applicant's claim.
country, may weaken claim
Statelessness Statelessness - Language shift  e.g. 2014 says “any  (page 25) D. Statelessness/Last Habitual Residence  no change
- No statelessness - No statelessness country to which the applicant might be
determination determinations returned” and 2017 says “any country of
- Determine credible fear of - Determine credible fear of proposed removal.” (p. 35).
persecution in any country to persecution in any country to
which applicant could return which applicant could return
Dual Citizenship Multiple Citizenship - Slight language changes  e.g., 2014  (page 25) C. Multiple Citizenship:
- Must establish credible fear - Must establish credible fear in says “demonstrates a credible fear with
in each country one country. If can’t establish respect to another country” whereas
in all, must refer to IJ. 2017 says “raises a fear with respect to  Eliminates text:
- Also refer to IJ if credible fear another country” (p. 35). And says “the Although the applicant would not be eligible for asylum unless he or she establishes
in country of firm resettlement. eligibility with respect to all countries of citizenship or nationality, he or she might be

country of removal” instead of “firmly entitled to withholding of removal with respect to one country and not the others. Therefore,
resettled” country (p. 35). the protection claim must be referred for a full hearing to determine this question.
- If multiple countries, 2014 plan used to

say “refer to an IJ for full
proceedings”…now 2017 says
“memorialize it in the file” in case DHS
tries to remove the person.
Establishing a Credible Fear of Torture

- Standard: significant possibly - Standard: significant possibly - No changes. - No changes
applicant could establish that it is applicant could establish that it is
more likely than not he would be more likely than not he would be
tortured tortured
- Gives definition found in CAT - Gives definition found in CAT
- Most elements required by CAT Major Change: Deletes section - No changes.  (page 26) B. General Considerations:
are not relevant for CFI making most elements of CAT
- Relevant for CFI: SOP satisfied irrelevant for CFI, and now requires  Eliminates text:
when significant possibility that: full screening of all elements under Because credible fear of torture interviews are employed as "screening mechanisms to
- Credible CAT quickly identify potentially meritorious claims to protection and to resolve frivolous ones
- Will be intentionally subjected to • Requirements with dispatch," parts of the torture definition that require complex legal and factual
act that produces serious harm 1) Specific Intent to Harm analyses may be more appropriately considered in a full hearing before an immigration
- Government officials (new) judge.
- Emphasizes instructions to AO’s: 2) Severe pain/suffering
Do NOT take other elements into 3) Public official, or someone
consideration at CFI level; that is for acting under instigation, consent, or
IJ acquiescence of public official
- Reminder of screening purpose 4) In torturer’s custody or
control (new)
5) Excludes pain/suffering
arising from lawful sanctions (new)
Intent Intent - No changes.  (page 27) C. Specific Intent:
- Actor intends to take action that - Specific intent to inflict pain or
would cause harm suffering (new req.)  Eliminates text:

- Actor need not intend serious - Satisfied: show of specific targeting The specific intent requirement is met when the evidence shows that an applicant may be
harm; just to take action that could or intentional singling out specifically targeted for punishment or intentionally singled out for harsh treatment that
result may rise to the level of torture.
- Specific intent only required in
CAT hearing before IJ  Adds text:
- Reminder CFI lower standard Specific intent is “intent to accomplish the precise criminal act that one is later charged
with” while “general intent” commonly “takes the form of recklessness… or negligence.”
- Matter of J-E-, 23 I&N Dec. 291, 301 (BIA 2002) (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 813-
14 (7th ed. 1999).
Serious Harm Degree of Harm - No changes.  (page 27) D. Degree of Harm:
- Not level of “severe pain and - Must be “extreme;” does not include
suffering” required by CAT, but “lesser forms of cruel or inhuman  Prior text (changes bold):
more than persecution treatment”- Therefore, certain many forms of harm that may be considered persecution may not be
- Case-by-case analysis considered severe enough to amount to torture.
- Consider severity and cumulative
effect  Eliminates text:
- Mental harm must be prolonged, in 3. Any harm must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it constitutes
addition to must result from one of torture. Whether harm constitutes torture often depends on the severity and cumulative
following: effect.
- threats of torture  Prior text (changes in bold):
- administration or threats of 3. c. The credible threat of imminent death; or
mind-altering substances, - threat d. The credible threat that another person will imminently be subject to death, severe
of imminent death, or physical pain or suffering, or…
- threats of any of these elements
to another person
Custody and Control (only in 2014) - No changes.
- Applicant must be under Custody
and Control of torturer(new req.)
- No guidance offered
Does not include pain or suffering - No changes.
arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions. (only in
2014)
- But sanctions that defeat object and
purpose of Convention are not lawful,

and harm arising from such sanctions
may constitute torture.
Past harm Past Harm - No changes.  (page 30) F. “Past Harm  no changes
- Generally, past torture sufficient to - Generally, past torture is sufficient to
establish significant possibility of establish future
future torture at CFI level - But preceded by paragraph stating
there is no presumption
Identity of torturer Identity of Torturer: Public Official - No changes.  (page 28) E. Identity of Torturer:
- Significant possibility can - State action not satisfied when public
establish public official official acts in private capacity  Eliminates text:
- “Public official” broader than just 2. Harm by a Public Official
police or government, and can include a. Generally, in the credible fear context, if there is a significant possibility the applicant
anyone acting under color of law. can establish that it is more likely than not that he or she was or would be harmed by a
- Highly complex analysis required for public official, the applicant has met the public official requirement for a credible fear of
color of law torture.
- Fact intensive b. The term "public official" is broader than the "government" or "police" and can include
- Requires analysis of: any person acting in an official capacity or under color of law. A public official can
- whether officers on duty in include any person acting on behalf of a national or local authority.
uniform, c. In the withholding or deferral of removal setting, when a public official acts in a wholly
- motivation, private capacity, outside any context of governmental authority, the state action element
- whether officers had access to of the torture definition is not satisfied. On this topic, the Second Circuit provided that,
victim because of their position. "[a]s two of the CAT's drafters have noted, when it is a public official who inflicts severe
- Makes reference to Fifth Circuit’s pain or suffering, it is only in exceptional cases that we can expect to be able to
expanded definition of “acting in conclude that the acts do not constitute torture by reason of the official acting for purely
official capacity” acting under color of private reasons."
law when uses official capacity to d. A public official is acting in an official capacity when "he misuses power possessed by
further personal objectives. virtue of law and made possible only because he was clothed with the authority of law."
- Acquiescence To establish whether a public official is acting in under the color of law, the applicant
- Government must instigate, must establish a nexus between the public official's authority and the harmful conduct
consent, or acquiesce inflicted on the applicant by the public official. Such an inquiry is fact intensive and
- Official must includes considerations like "whether the officers are on duty and in uniform, the
1) have awareness, and motivation behind the officer's actions and whether the officers had access to the victim
2) breach legal duty to because of their positions, among others." The Fifth Circuit also addressed "acting in an
intervene official capacity" by positing " [w]e have recognized on numerous occasions that acts

- Requires either knowledge or willful motivated by an officer's personal objectives are 'under color of law' when the officer uses
blindness his official capacity to further those objectives."
- Consent/Instigation/Acquiescence
vs. Unwilling/Unable to Prevent  Adds text:
- Inability irrelevant The term “public official” can include any person acting on behalf of a national or local
- Proper inquiry: Is official with authority or any national or local government employee regardless whether the official is
duty to intervene willing to? acting in their official or personal capacity.
- Requires awareness or deliberate
avoidance  Adds Footnote (7):
- Complex willingness analysis: if If the injunction in Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018) is lifted, then
some government officials try to officers must instead follow the following guidelines:
intervene, but the government is In the withholding or deferral of removal setting, when a public official acts in a wholly
composed of other members who private capacity, outside any context of governmental authority, the state action element
consent, and the government overall of the torture definition may not be satisfied depending on the circuit. On this topic, the
cannot stop the torture, that may meet Second Circuit provided that, '[a]s two of the CAT's drafters have noted, when it is a
the standard. public official who inflicts severe pain or suffering, it is only in exceptional cases that we
can expect to be able to conclude that the acts do not constitute torture by reason of the
official acting for purely private reasons."' Khousam v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 161, 171 (2d
Cir. 2004) (emphasis added). Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit has held that the public
official need not be acting on behalf of the government. Barajas-Romero v. Lynch, 846 F.
3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017).
 (page 28) (paragraph 3)  Instigation, Consent, or Acquiescence:
 Adds text:
Asylum officers must consult all available and salient information, including information
in the objective country conditions set forth in Department of State country reports.
While circuit courts of appeals are split with regards to the BIA’s “willful acceptance”
phrase in favor of the more precise “willful blindness,” for purposes of threshold credible
fear screenings, asylum officers must use the willful blindness standard.

The willingness in certain levels of a government to combat harm is not necessarily
responsive to the question of whether torture would be inflicted with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official. In De La Rosa v. Holder, the Second Circuit stated,
"[i]n short, it is not clear to this Court why the preventative efforts of some government
actors should foreclose the possibility of government acquiescence, as a matter of law,
under the CAT. Where a government contains officials that would be complicit in torture,
and that government, on the whole, is admittedly incapable of actually preventing that
torture, the fact that some officials take action to prevent the torture would seem neither
inconsistent with a finding of government acquiescence nor necessarily responsive to the
question of whether torture would be 'inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.'"
Similarly, the Third Circuit has indicated that the fact that the government of Colombia
was engaged in war against the FARC did not in itself establish that it could not be
consenting or acquiescing to torture by members of the FARC.
Internal Relocation AO Must Consider Internal - Language revised from 2014,  (page 30) G. Internal Relocation:
- No internal relocation/IFA analysis Relocation/IFA: New! making it seem like a higher
in CFI - CAT: Applicant has burden to show burden for the applicant  (paragraph 1) Adds text to end:
no IFA (although technically saying the …Asylum officers must consult all available and salient information, including the
- Asylum: government has burden to same thing). e.g., 2017 “more objective country conditions set forth in Department of State country reports.
show IFA exists likely than not he or she would
- If persecutor is government official, be tortured” instead of 2014  (paragraph 2) Adds text:
no IFA analysis necessary “eligible for withholding or Unlike the persecution context, the regulations implementing CAT do not explicitly
deferral of removal” under reference the need to evaluate the reasonableness of internal relocation. Nonetheless, the
CAT. Also e.g., 2017 “in regulations provide that “all evidence relevant to the possibility of future torture shall be
assessing whether there is a considered…” Therefore, asylum officers should apply the same reasonableness inquiry
significant possibility that he or articulated in the persecution context to the CAT context.
she is eligible for CAT” instead 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3)(ii)
of 2014 “in credible fear of 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b)(3); See RAOI Training Module, Well Founded Fear.
torture determinations.”
Stronger language.  Eliminates text:
2. Under the Convention Against Torture, the burden is on the applicant to show, for CAT
- Replaces discussion of 9th withholding of removal or deferral of removal, that it is more likely than not that he or she
Circuit case Hasan v. Ashcroft would be tortured, and one of the relevant considerations is the possibility of relocation.
and replaces it with 9th Circuit In deciding whether the applicant has satisfied his or her burden, the adjudicator must
case Maldonado v. Holder. consider all relevant evidence, including but not limited to the possibility of relocation
Removes emphasis of burden within the country of removal.

on the applicant to show 3. Credible evidence that the feared torturer is a public official will normally be sufficient
internal relocation not a evidence that there is no safe internal relocation option in the credible fear context.
possibility (Hasan). Instead 4. Unlike the persecution context, the regulations implementing CAT do not explicitly
notes that all relevant evidence, reference the need to
including the possibility of evaluate the reasonableness of internal relocation. Nonetheless, the regulations provide
relocation, should be that "all evidence of relevant to the possibility of future torture shall be considered ... "
considered when deciding if the Therefore, asylum officers should apply the same reasonableness inquiry articulated in the
applicant met his/her burden persecution context to the CAT context.
(Maldonado).
Bars
- No analysis of bars No analysis of bars - No changes.  (page 31) IX. Applicability of Bars to Asylum and Withholding of Removal  no
- But AO’s required to take notes on - But AO’s required to take notes on changes
relevant information relevant information
Treatment of Dependents
- Spouses/children can be attached if -Spouses/children can be attached if - No changes.  (page 32) X. OTHER ISSUES: A. “Treatment of Dependents”  no changes
they arrived together and wish to be they arrived together and wish to be
attached attached
Other Issues
- Section on permitting - Updates to the “Summary” at  (page 33) D. No General Presumptions Against Certain Types of Cases:
attorneys/consultants added the end to reflect major 2017
- Sections removed from 2014 Lesson changes:  Adds Text:
Plan Each claim must be evaluated on its own merits. Therefore, there is no general
- Instructions on proper use of COI 1. Credible Fear Standard of presumption against officers recognizing any particular type of fear claim.
- Instructions on changed Proof section  Removes For example, there is no general rule against claims involving domestic violence and
circumstances being irrelevant at CFI paragraph about reasonable gang-related violence as a basis for membership in a particular social group. Similarly,
stage doubt meriting a positive CF there is no general rule that proposed particular social groups whose definitions involve an
- 2014 summary excludes instructions determination, removes inability to leave a domestic relationship are circular and therefore not cognizable. While
and references to the screening reference to IJ’s ability to a particular social group cannot be defined exclusively by the claimed persecution, each
function and low threshold address any doubts in a full particular social group should be evaluated on its own merits. If the proposed social group
hearing. definition contains characteristics independent from the feared persecution, the group may
be invalid. Analysis as to whether a proposed particular social group is cognizable should
take into account the independent characteristics presented in each case.

2. Credibility Section  new
language requiring a full/final  Adds text:
credibility determination. E. No Need for the Applicant to Formulate or Delineate a Particular Social Group:
In evaluating whether the applicant has established a credible fear of persecution, if the
claim is based on a particular social group, then the asylum officer cannot require an
applicant to formulate or delineate particular social groups. The asylum officer must
consider and evaluate possible formulations of particular social groups as part of the
officer’s obligation to elicit all relevant information from the applicant in this non-
adversarial setting.
 (page 34) XIII. SUMMARY

B. “Function of Credible Fear Screening”:
The purpose of the credible fear screening process is to identify persons subject to
expedited removal who might ultimately be eligible have a significant possibility of
ultimately being found eligible for asylum under section 208 of the INA or withholding
of removal or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture CAT, and to
identify and screen out non-meritorious claims.
 (page 34) C. Credible Fear Standard of Proof: Significant Possibility:
The asylum officer shall consider whether the applicant’s case presents novel or unique
issues that merit consideration in a full hearing before an immigration judge.

Where there is disagreement among the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal as to the
proper interpretation of a legal issue; or the claim otherwise raises an unresolved issue of
law; and, there is no DHS or Asylum Division policy or guidance
on the issue, then generally the interpretation most favorable to the applicant is used
when determining whether the applicant meets satisfies the credible fear standard.
 (page 35) E. “Establishing a Credible Fear of Persecution”:
 Adds Footnote 8:

If the order in Grace v. Whitaker, 344 F. Supp 3d 96 (D.D.C. 2018), is lifted, then officer
must instead follow the following guidelines:
“The asylum officer should also apply the case law of the relevant federal circuit court,
together with the applicable precedents of the Attorney General and the BIA. The BIA
defers to precedents of the circuit in which the removal proceedings took place. Matter of
Anselmo, 20 I.&N. Dec. 25, 31 (BIA 1989), except in certain special situations, see id.;
see also Nat’l Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S.
967 (2005) (holding prior judicial construction of statute trumps agency construction
otherwise entitled to Chevron deference only if prior court decisions holds that its
construction is required by unambiguous terms of statute and leaves no room for agency
discretion).”

In general, a finding that there is a significant possibility that
the applicant experienced past persecution on account of a
protected, characteristic is (2) such conditions continue in the applicant’s home
country, and (3) the applicant could not avoid such persecution by relocating within
his or her home country are sufficient to satisfy the credible fear standard. However, if
the applicant fails to present there is evidence demonstrating that there is a
significant possibility of future persecution so substantial that there is no significant
possibility of future persecution or other serious harm, or that there are no reasons to
grant asylum based on the severity of the past persecution, a negative credible fear
determination may be appropriate.
 (page 35) F. “Establishing a Credible Fear of Torture”:
Torture does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to
lawful sanctions. However, sanctions that defeat the object and purpose of the Convention
are not lawful sanctions. Harm arising out of such sanctions may constitute torture.
Credible evidence of past torture is strong evidence in support of a claim for protection
based on fear of future torture. For that reason, an applicant who establishes that he or she
suffered past torture will establish a credible fear of torture, unless changes in
circumstances are so substantial that the applicant has no significant possibility of future
torture as a result of the change.

 Adds text:
In order to assess whether an applicant faces torture in the proposed country of removal,
an officer must consider all relevant evidence, which includes but is not limited to the
following: credible evidence of past torture; credible evidence that the applicant could
internally relocate to avoid torture; and credible evidence of gross, flagrant, or mass
violations of human rights within the country of removal, for which determination the
officer must consult the objective country conditions set forth in Department of State
country reports.

Credible Fear Lesson Plans Comparison Chart: 2006 2014 2017 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Credible Fear Lesson Plans Comparison Chart: 2006 2014 2017 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Credible Fear Lesson Plans Comparison Chart: 2006 2014 2017 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Angela Edman Prepared 2006  2014 Analysis

Dree Collopy Prepared 2014  2017 Analysis

 February 2014 Lesson Plan:

• Removes language on function of credible fear as a low-threshold screening

 February 2017 Lesson Plan:

 April 2019 Lesson Plan:

• Officer may require applicant to provide country conditions materials

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

Lesson Plan Overview

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

 Adds background material:

 (page 3) “Critical Tasks”  adds:

 (page 4) “Table of Contents”  eliminates historical background section.

 Adds to Section X “Other Issues”:

Function of Credible Fear Screening

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

 Replaces with text:

 Adds text (changes in bold):

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

 Prior text (changes in bold):

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

4. Similarly, where there is:

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

- Eliminates language that “the officer

- Removes paragraph about eliciting

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

Only in 2006 Added in 2014 - No changes.

Added in 2014 - No changes.

Added in 2014 - No changes.

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

 Adds Footnote (1) and (2):

 Prior text (changes in bold) 

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

- “Identifying credibility concerns” 

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

- Removes distinction from 2014

- Consider demeanor, - Consider demeanor, - “Demeanor, candor, responsiveness…”  Eliminates text:

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

 (paragraph 2) New language:

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

 (paragraph 3) Prior text (changes bold):

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

 (paragraph 2) Adds text (changes in bold):

 (paragraph 3) changes (changes in bold):

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

 2019 plan combines sections 

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

 (paragraph 1) Adds text:

 (paragraph 2) 2. Severity of Harm:

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

 Adds text Motivation (b):

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)

AILA Doc. No. 19053034. (Posted 5/30/19)