In re Iraheta

BIA Unpublished Dec., File No. A24 247 299 (Sept. 10, 1990)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Iraheta

United States Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA Unpublished Dec., File No. A24 247 299 (Sept. 10, 1990)

Facts

Berta Lidia Iraheta (defendant) entered the United States from El Salvador, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) (plaintiff) initiated deportation proceedings before an immigration judge (IJ). At the proceeding, Iraheta testified she became active in the Revolutionary Secondary Student Movement (MERS), a student organization, and the Popular United Action Front (FAPU), an anti-government group. Iraheta testified that while in secondary school, she helped organize meetings and recruited members for MERS and FAPU. Iraheta also testified that she passed out leaflets objecting to the killing of innocent civilians and espousing liberty for both groups. Iraheta testified that the Salvadoran government and armed services persecuted members of MERS, torturing and killing Iraheta’s friends and acquaintances in the movement. Iraheta also testified that her fiancé, a man active in MERS, disappeared in February 1980 after the torture and death of his four brothers. Iraheta testified that her friends informed Iraheta that members of the government were looking for her at her mother’s house, causing her to flee El Salvador. Iraheta also introduced documentary evidence about her case and the situation in El Salvador to support her claim. The IJ denied Iraheta’s application for asylum, finding that she failed to meet her burden of proof. The IJ found that Iraheta’s testimony lacked detail and particularity about the political beliefs of MERS and FAPU and her opposition to the Salvadoran government. The IJ also found that Iraheta’s testimony conflicted with her submitted affidavit. The IJ also found Iraheta was hesitant and unemotional during her testimony, a fact that undermined her credibility. The IJ did not state whether Iraheta’s testimony was sufficient for asylum purposes, concluding that her testimony was substantially untrue instead. Iraheta appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), reasserting her asylum claim.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Dunne, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership