Nationwide Immigration Appeals
Asylum, Withholding & CAT Denial Appeals
Fear-based cases are among the most heavily litigated in immigration law, and judges deny them for many different reasons. Some denials rest on credibility; others turn on legal questions such as whether a proposed particular social group is valid or whether the harm was connected to a protected ground.
Identifying exactly why the judge ruled against you — and which of those reasons are legal errors — is the core of a successful asylum appeal.
Common grounds for appeal
- Adverse credibility findings based on minor or explained inconsistencies
- Rejection of a particular social group or political opinion claim
- Errors on “nexus” — whether the harm was because of a protected ground
- Failure to consider country conditions evidence
- Misapplication of the one-year filing deadline or its exceptions
- Denial of CAT protection without assessing all sources of risk together
Three forms of protection, three standards
Asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection each have different legal requirements and burdens of proof. A judge can err on one and not the others. We address each form of relief separately so the Board cannot dispose of the whole case on a single ground.
Questions about asylum, withholding & cat denials
The judge said I was not credible. Can that be appealed?
Yes, though credibility findings are reviewed for clear error, which is a demanding standard. Appeals succeed when the judge relied on trivial inconsistencies, ignored explanations, or failed to give specific, cogent reasons.
Conditions in my country got worse after my hearing. What can I do?
Changed country conditions can support a motion to reopen, even outside the normal time limit for asylum-based claims. We evaluate whether a motion or the appeal is the better vehicle.