Matter of A-S-
Board of Immigration Appeals
21 I & N Dec. 1106 (1998)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
A-S- (plaintiff) was a citizen of Bangladesh who entered the United States (defendant) without valid documentation and applied for asylum and withholding of deportation. A-S- claimed to have been an appointed official of a political party in Bangladesh that had recently been defeated in a national election. A-S- alleged that he suffered political persecution from persons affiliated with the new ruling party and that his life had been endangered as a result. In his asylum application and in his testimony before the immigration judge, A-S- alleged that representatives of that political group had tried to find him at his home, had beaten him severely, and had accosted his family members. However, there were numerous significant inconsistencies regarding the details of these events, and the months and years in which they occurred, between his application and his verbal testimony. In addition to these inconsistencies, the immigration judge found that A-S-was very halting, hesitant, and vague in his in-person testimony. The immigration judge concluded that A-S-’s inconsistent and vague presentation of the facts failed to support his allegations of persecution and denied his application for asylum. A-S- appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hurwitz, Board Member)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 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.
