Asghar: Translation Problems and the Evidence Behind an Asylum Denial

If you struggled to understand an interpreter at your asylum hearing, it can be upsetting to learn that your answers were later used to question your credibility. A careful review needs to identify the disputed exchange, whether it was corrected and how it affected the reasons for denying protection.

In Asghar v. Garland, No. 21-1290 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2023) (amended memorandum), the Ninth Circuit recognized evidence of some mistranslation. It nevertheless upheld the denial of asylum, withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. Its analysis examined the corrections made during the hearing, the remaining errors and the other evidence supporting the agency’s decision.

The court reviewed the reasons for disbelieving the account

Mudasar Asghar, a native and citizen of Pakistan, sought review after the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of protection. The credibility analysis in Asghar addressed the reasons the agency gave for disbelieving his account, including statements about travel, his religious history and his responses during questioning.

The court reviewed those findings for substantial evidence. In practical terms, the court was reviewing the agency’s decision and existing record. Under 8 U.S.C. section 1252(b)(4)(B), it had to accept the factual findings unless the evidence compelled a contrary conclusion. That standard shaped both its assessment of credibility and its review of the country evidence.

The asylum credibility rule, 8 U.S.C. section 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), calls for considering the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors, including the consistency of statements and the circumstances in which they were made. The panel considered the inconsistencies and explanations together when deciding whether the credibility finding could stand.

Travel plans and the religious account affected credibility

The travel discussion in Asghar described a claim that he had not known he could obtain a visa to travel to the United States or enter through a land-based port. The agency compared that statement with his international travel history, including an extended stay in Russia and visas obtained for travel to other countries. The panel accepted the agency’s inference that his account was implausible on that record.

A separate timing issue concerned his reasons for leaving Pakistan. At the credible-fear interview, he said he had not considered leaving before an assault in June 2019. At the immigration hearing, he acknowledged meeting a travel agent in May who had explained the possibility of departing for the United States. The court considered that difference directly relevant to his stated motivation for leaving.

The religious-account comparison in Asghar involved the asylum application and later testimony. The application said that he and his wife had been persecuted for “changing our sect from Sunni and Shia to Ahle-Tashi,” which the opinion identifies as synonymous with Shia Islam. At the hearing, he said he had not become Shiite, although neighbors might have suspected conversion. The agency relied on the differing accounts in assessing credibility.

The panel also examined a demeanor finding tied to particular exchanges during cross-examination. Its description of the transcript included confrontations over social-media material concerning his stays in Russia. The court found support for the agency’s assessment in those recorded exchanges.

Asghar offered explanations for the inconsistencies. The court concluded that the agency had reasonably rejected them or treated them as implausible. The analysis thus concerned the particular statements, surrounding facts and treatment of the explanations.

The translation challenge required a connection to the outcome

The translation analysis in Asghar applied Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d 773, 778 (9th Cir. 2000), for the importance of competent translation to a full and fair hearing. It also applied Acewicz v. INS, 984 F.2d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir. 1993), to the showing required for a translation-based due-process claim.

That showing had two parts: evidence of mistranslation and an explanation of how a better translation would have made a difference to the hearing’s outcome. The court examined both the existence of errors and their effect on the decision.

The connection is especially important when the denial rests on credibility. If a mistranslated answer caused the agency to disbelieve the person, the error bears directly on the reason for denial. The panel examined whether Asghar had shown that connection in light of the complete testimony and the agency’s stated grounds.

Many errors were clarified, and other testimony supported the finding

The hearing-record discussion in Asghar acknowledged incorrectly translated words, answers that did not respond to the questions and expressions of difficulty understanding. According to the panel, most errors were corrected through additional questioning or requests for clarification.

The prejudice assessment in Asghar then examined the errors that remained unclarified. It described them as relatively minor compared with the substantial amount of properly translated testimony supporting the credibility finding. It concluded that Asghar had not sufficiently shown that those errors caused the agency to disbelieve him.

This reasoning makes the corrected exchange important to a record review. Locate the original question and answer, what was said about the translation problem and the follow-up. Then identify whether the judge relied on the original answer, the clarification or other testimony about the same point.

The travel-planning and religious-account findings also needed attention. A translation challenge had to be evaluated alongside the other grounds the agency had relied on and the explanations already offered for them.

The country reports were considered separately

The documentary-evidence analysis in Asghar separately addressed whether the record supported protection independently of his testimony. Asghar criticized the agency’s brief treatment of the country reports and relied on Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2020), a case involving selective use of country evidence.

The panel concluded that the reports in Asghar’s record were mixed and that the agency had considered that mixed evidence. They described harm to Shia Muslims by government actors and sectarian groups, while also describing government efforts to combat sectarian violence and protect affected people. The court upheld the agency’s reading of those materials.

That discussion concerned the country evidence submitted in this particular case. The panel also noted that Asghar supplied no further independent evidence supporting his protection claims. It upheld the agency’s denial of asylum, withholding and CAT protection under the substantial-evidence standard.

For a record review, identify the particular report passages, the applicant’s circumstances and the way the decision addressed the evidence. A challenge based on ignored or selectively quoted material needs to show that problem in the record the agency actually considered.

The petition was denied in the amended decision

The September 12 order in Asghar amended an earlier June 5 memorandum and denied the petition for panel rehearing. The amended memorandum concluded by denying the petition for review, leaving the agency’s denial of protection in place.

The outcome rested on the combined record: supported credibility grounds, translation problems that were largely clarified or not shown to affect the result, and independent country evidence that did not compel a different decision. Reviewing the amended version is important when identifying the court’s actual analysis and disposition.

Match the disputed exchange to the finding it affected

Bring the asylum application, interview records, hearing transcript or available recording, supporting exhibits, immigration judge’s decision and Board decision. For each disputed interpretation, identify the question, recorded answer, proposed correction, any clarification and the finding that relied on the exchange.

Compare the relevant dates and descriptions across the application, interview and testimony. Explain what the person meant and where an explanation was offered. If a claim involves religious identity or perceived conversion, distinguish the person’s actual beliefs from what other people believed about them, and examine how those points were described in the filed record.

Our interpreter-error record guide explains practical steps for preserving and locating disputed exchanges. Our Mbueno-Vita analysis examines another translation-related credibility record. Bring the specific decisions and underlying passages for a focused review of the error alleged, its effect and the other grounds supporting the outcome.