Telling truths: How the REAL ID Act's credibility provisions affect women asylum seekers

When a persecuted woman flees her country, she rarely brings with her evidence of Persecution for a future asylum hearing in a far-away land. Because of this unavailability of corroborating evidence, asylum law has historically given great weight to the applicant's testimony. If it is deemed credible, her testimony may be the only evidence necessary to meet her burden of proof. Thus, credibility is essential to a grant of asylum. The REAL ID Act of 2005 adds a new credibility provision to the asylum statute that instructs immigration judges and adjudicators to assess the demeanor and candor of the applicant and the consistency of her statements. This Note will argue that, while useful in some circumstances, these factors may inaccurately assess the credibility of a persecuted woman due to the cultural and psychological barriers that prohibit her from effectively communicating her story. To compound the problem, the REAL ID Act comes at a time when immigration judges are under fire for the poor quality of their work and insensitive interactions with asylum seekers. Additionally, the Board of Immigration Appeals recently shifted its standard of review for immigration judges' decisions from de novo to clearly erroneous. This Note will argue that this combination of factors-unreliable credibility indicia, thoughtless adjudication, and highly deferential appellate review-could lead to mistaken credibility determinations, turning away precisely the women that U.S. asylum law has vowed to Protect.