Asylum cases are frequently decided on a single question: whether the adjudicator believes the applicant. Since enactment of the REAL ID Act, credibility determinations have become both more formalized and more unforgiving, with statutory standards that invite rigorous scrutiny of testimony. Yet despite a common federal framework, courts of appeals apply credibility principles unevenly, resulting in significant circuit-level variation that can determine the outcome of a case.

This CLE program analyzes how the “well-founded fear” standard is evaluated through credibility findings, with a practitioner-oriented examination of inconsistencies, omissions, demeanor, plausibility, and corroboration under the “totality of the circumstances.” The course compares how different circuits approach these factors, highlighting areas of consensus as well as entrenched splits.

With a focus on litigation strategy, the program equips attorneys to navigate jurisdiction-specific credibility doctrines, assess the materiality of discrepancies, and address omissions without undermining the overall narrative of the claim. Participants will gain practical guidance on building a resilient record, preserving credibility issues for appeal, and proactively responding to adverse findings in asylum proceedings.