RAICES Bulletin: BIA to Immigration Judges– Truth-Telling Alone Does Not Equal Credibility
By RAICES Public Affairs Director Javier Hidalgo, Esq.
TL;DR The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) recently issued a decision holding asylum seeker's admission that they previously made misrepresentations on visa applications to enter the U.S. does not establish credibility; Immigration Judges (IJ) should instead consider the totality of circumstances. While the implication is that the BIA does not agree that the applicant was credible, it is still well settled law that individuals fleeing danger are not faulted for lying in order to reach the U.S. and seek safety.
WHAT TO KNOW
Issue: In Matter of T-D-E-, 29 I&N Dec. 732 (BIA June 29, 2026), the BIA ruled that an IJ cannot automatically believe an asylum seeker just because they honestly admit to lying in the past to enter the U.S. Instead, IJs should look at the complete picture of the situation. Although the BIA does not make an explicit finding regarding the asylum seeker's lack of credibility, such a conclusion is clearly implied to both the IJ and the general public.
Rationale: The BIA held that, while candor is relevant, multiple factors can impact credibility. According to the BIA, the prior falsehoods may show a propensity for dishonesty and must be weighed in the totality of circumstances, not treated as a basis for affirmatively finding credibility. The BIA ordered the IJ to do additional granular analysis in order to make a credibility determination.
RAICES Impact: Providers like RAICES often work with asylum seekers who may have misrepresented facts out of desperation to reach the U.S. and escape danger. Because this decision may signal to IJs that the BIA wants them to treat these misrepresentations as adverse factors, legal representatives should be prepared to push back and argue that, while the IJ should consider all the circumstances, past dishonesty in order to escape harm should not be counted against them. These arguments should be coupled with evidence corroborating the asylum seeker’s claims.
Community Impact: Asylum seekers without legal representation will likely face more negative credibility findings. Non-citizens may be less likely to open about their past or give up on seeking safety altogether because they are terrified their past desperate actions will be used against them.
Related Legal Battles: It is still the law that individuals should not be faulted for lying to escape persecution and get to the US. See Matter of Pula, 19 I&N Dec. 467, 474 (BIA 1987); see also Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1271 (9th Cir. 2011); Gulla v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir. 2007). If IJs issue adverse credibility findings inconsistent with this precedent, practitioners will increasingly need to rely on BIA appeals and federal circuit court petitions for review.
Broader Immigration Strategy: This recent ruling appears to be part of a larger plan by the administration to break down the U.S. asylum system by creating fear and confusion. It shows how the BIA is being weaponized to change immigration rules quietly without going through the official policymaking process, which strips away the independence of IJs. Ultimately, this ruling damages trust in the immigration system as a whole.
