Fiallos-Munoz: A Missing Abduction Account Supported the Credibility Finding

The Ninth Circuit upheld an adverse credibility finding where an asylum applicant’s hearing testimony centered on a gunpoint abduction missing from her earlier written declaration. In Fiallos-Munoz v. Bondi, No. 19-72336 (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2026), the court examined why the omission mattered, how the agency addressed the applicant’s explanation, and whether other evidence supported relief. It denied the petition for review.

This is an unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum, with precedential effect limited by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Its practical value lies in the specific comparison between the written account, hearing testimony and agency reasons.

The hearing account differed from the written declaration

Nelly Fiallos-Munoz sought asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture, or CAT. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the immigration judge’s denial. Representing herself before the Ninth Circuit, she challenged the agency’s credibility assessment and denial of protection.

Her hearing testimony focused on a November 2008 incident after separation from her partner. She described being publicly abducted at gunpoint while leaving work, beaten and confined for three days, causing a miscarriage. Her previously executed declaration omitted an abduction at gunpoint.

The most similar incident in the declaration involved a different account: Her partner became angry when she refused to give him money for drugs, punched her, dragged her by the hair into a dark room and confined her for two days. The court compared those actual descriptions. The missing gunpoint abduction was central to the later testimony, rather than an incidental detail attached to an otherwise unchanged narrative.

The court assessed the omission in the full credibility record

The governing statute, 8 U.S.C. section 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), directs a credibility assessment based on the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors. The memorandum cited Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc), for that framework.

The panel then applied the explanation in Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2020): An omission can bear on credibility when the later disclosure, if accepted, strengthens an earlier, weaker asylum application. Here, Fiallos-Munoz had made the previously unmentioned gunpoint abduction a focus of her persecution claim. The court treated that change as probative of credibility.

Other discrepancies also mattered. The agency identified inconsistencies concerning the timing and circumstances of the miscarriage and a police complaint she may have filed through an attorney. Fiallos-Munoz argued that these points were peripheral to the severe abuse underlying her claim. The court applied Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010), explaining that the REAL ID Act permits consideration of inconsistencies beyond the heart of the claim. The analysis therefore considered the full record, rather than requiring each discrepancy independently to establish the central persecution account.

The agency considered her explanation for leaving it out

Fiallos-Munoz explained that she had tried to forget the incident. The court recognized the requirement that an immigration judge consider and address plausible, reasonable explanations for inconsistencies, citing Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1092–93 (9th Cir. 2014).

The agency had considered her explanation and rejected it in light of the event’s major traumatic character. The panel found that conclusion reasonable on this record. Its analysis connected the explanation to the particular omission and the later central role of the abduction account.

For record review, this makes two separate questions important: What explanation was actually offered, and why did the agency accept or reject it? A general reference to trauma cannot replace the testimony, circumstances and reasoning the decision reviewed.

The court reviewed a factual finding with deference

The court reviewed credibility for substantial evidence. Under the standard quoted from Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010), reversal requires evidence so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach the adverse conclusion.

The Board had reviewed the immigration judge’s credibility finding for clear error. The court therefore looked to the judge’s decision to understand the basis for the Board’s conclusion. The hearing testimony, declaration and explanations had to be evaluated within that review structure.

That distinction matters when considering an appeal. Presenting another plausible reading of an account is different from showing that the record compels rejection of the agency’s finding. In Fiallos-Munoz, the court concluded that the material omission, additional inconsistencies and treatment of the explanation supported the agency’s result.

The supporting documents and CAT record also fell short

The agency found the documentary evidence insufficient to rehabilitate credibility. Without credible testimony or sufficient corroborating evidence, Fiallos-Munoz had not established eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. The memorandum cited Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2020), in explaining that evidentiary failure.

The CAT claim rested on the same allegations the agency had disbelieved. Fiallos-Munoz identified no other evidence in the record compelling the conclusion that she would likely be tortured if returned to Honduras. The panel relied on that combination—discredited allegations and the absence of identified independent evidence compelling a different result—to uphold the CAT denial. It cited Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003), for that analysis.

The petition was denied. For someone reviewing a similar credibility dispute, the essential records are the filed application and declaration, complete hearing transcript, supporting exhibits, immigration judge’s reasons and Board decision. Our guide to reviewing a missing event in an asylum declaration addresses the distinct preparation task before drawing conclusions from an isolated discrepancy.