Reported / Citable
Background
Salaruddin Eqbal, a Tajik native and citizen of Afghanistan, worked in security roles for prominent Afghan government officials. He alleged that the Taliban imprisoned and tortured him during its first regime and later targeted him and his family because of his government service after retaking Afghanistan in 2021. Eqbal fled Afghanistan in 2023, entered the United States in 2024, and sought asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
After a hearing at which Eqbal represented himself, an immigration judge found him not credible, concluded that he lacked adequate corroboration, and held that his documentary evidence did not independently establish eligibility for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals adopted and affirmed that decision, relying heavily on supposed inconsistencies concerning Eqbal’s employment history and prior imprisonment.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that the record did not support the agency’s findings that Eqbal gave materially inconsistent accounts of his employment and imprisonment. The supposed employment-date discrepancy resulted from converting the Afghan year 1372 into “1972” rather than 1993—an interpretation that would place Eqbal’s employment before his birth and before the Taliban existed. The record also showed that Eqbal had disclosed his Taliban imprisonment and torture during both his credible-fear interview and his personal declaration.
The court further held that the agency failed to meaningfully consider key evidence, including photographs of Eqbal with high-ranking Afghan officials, government employment identification cards, and Taliban documents calling for his arrest because of his former employment. Because the erroneous credibility findings affected the agency’s entire analysis, the court granted the petition for review, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded for a new credibility assessment and meaningful consideration of the evidence. It did not decide whether the agency properly required additional corroboration.
Key Takeaways
- An adverse credibility determination must rest on specific, cogent reasons supported by the record, not apparent discrepancies caused by translation or calendar-conversion errors.
- Immigration adjudicators must meaningfully consider key documentary evidence and may not disregard it based on factual premises contradicted by the record.
- The remand does not award Eqbal asylum or other protection; it requires the agency to reconsider credibility, supporting evidence, and any necessary corroboration.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that substantial-evidence review remains meaningful when an immigration agency’s credibility findings depend on misunderstandings, mistranslations, or omissions that the record disproves. Those errors can require vacatur when they shape the agency’s treatment of the applicant’s entire case.
For asylum practitioners, the opinion also highlights the importance of identifying calendar and interpretation problems and ensuring that adjudicators address photographs, employment records, warrants, and other evidence bearing directly on an applicant’s account.