The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a landmark decision today that fundamentally reshapes how Immigration Judges can evaluate asylum seekers and other applicants for protection from removal. In Matter of G-C-I-, 29 I&N Dec. 176 (BIA 2025), decided on August 19, 2025, the BIA established two precedents that will have profound implications for immigration practice nationwide.
The Two Holdings
1. Nonresponsive and Evasive Testimony Now Supports Adverse Credibility Findings
The New Rule: A respondent’s nonresponsive and evasive testimony, including when related to corroboration issues, supports an adverse credibility determination.
What This Means: Immigration Judges can now find applicants not credible based on how they answer questions, not just what they say. This represents a significant expansion of credibility analysis beyond traditional factors.
2. Lack of Corroboration Can Independently Defeat Claims
The New Rule: A lack of corroboration may be an independent basis to find that a respondent has not met their burden of proof to establish asylum or withholding of removal claims.
What This Means: Even if an applicant is deemed credible, failure to provide supporting evidence can still result in denial. Credibility and corroboration are now clearly separate hurdles, both of which must be overcome.
Why This Decision Matters: Understanding the Legal Evolution
The Credibility Revolution: From Inconsistencies to Demeanor
Prior to the REAL ID Act of 2005, credibility determinations were largely based on consistency and plausibility. The Act introduced a broader framework, allowing Immigration Judges to consider “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness” alongside traditional factors.
However, until G-C-I-, most adverse credibility findings focused on:
- Inconsistencies between different statements
- Implausible testimony
- Lack of detail in accounts
G-C-I- represents a seismic shift by explicitly endorsing credibility denials based on evasiveness and non-responsiveness during testimony. This mirrors developments in other areas of law where witness behavior during questioning can indicate deception.
The Historical Context: From S-M-J- to L-A-C- to G-C-I-
The corroboration requirements have evolved through a series of key decisions:
Matter of S-M-J- (1997): The Foundation
Before the REAL ID Act, Matter of S-M-J-, 21 I&N Dec. 722 (BIA 1997), established that where it’s reasonable to expect corroborating evidence, it should be provided. However, this was applied inconsistently across circuits.
The REAL ID Act (2005): Congressional Codification
Congress codified S-M-J-‘s standards in the REAL ID Act, establishing that testimony alone “may be sufficient” only if it’s “credible, is persuasive, and refers to specific facts sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a refugee.”
Matter of L-A-C- (2015): Clarifying Procedures
Matter of L-A-C-, 26 I&N Dec. 516 (BIA 2015), clarified that Immigration Judges don’t need to provide advance notice of required corroboration or automatic continuances. This decision was controversial, with some circuits disagreeing.
Matter of G-C-I- (2025): The Independent Standard
G-C-I- takes L-A-C-‘s framework further by explicitly stating that corroboration analysis is independent of credibility. Even credible applicants can be denied for lack of supporting evidence.
Matter of G-C-IT. The Georgian Opposition Member’s Failed Quest
The respondent, a Georgian citizen, claimed persecution for supporting the United National Movement (UNM) opposition party. He alleged:
- 2020: Beaten by police while transporting voters, hospitalized
- 2024: Beaten again at a political rally after returning from unsuccessful asylum attempt in France
Where It Went Wrong: The Evasive Testimony
The critical moment came when the Immigration Judge asked about efforts to obtain medical records. Instead of providing specific answers about what steps he had taken, the respondent:
“…focused on the generalized political climate in Georgia, claiming that people were afraid of participating in his case. He did not answer the specific question of why protests would prevent his friends or family from obtaining his medical records.”
This pattern of non-responsive answers became central to the credibility denial.
The Missing Evidence That Sealed His Fate
The respondent also failed to obtain:
- Medical records from his alleged beatings (despite vague explanations about political climate)
- A letter from his brother who lived in the United States and was central to his political activities
When asked why he hadn’t requested a letter from his brother, the respondent testified that “while his brother would have been willing to write a letter, he had not asked him.”
The Credibility Expansion: A New Weapon for Immigration Judges
G-C-I- explicitly endorses what many Immigration Judges were already doing informally: penalizing applicants for how they testify, not just what they say. This creates several new challenges:
1. Cultural and Linguistic Barriers
Applicants from cultures where direct confrontation with authority figures is discouraged may appear “evasive” when simply following cultural norms.
2. Trauma-Informed Considerations
Trauma survivors often provide circuitous answers, especially when discussing difficult experiences. This decision could penalize trauma responses.
3. Language Interpretation Issues
Through interpreters, natural speech patterns may appear more evasive than they actually are.
The Corroboration Trap: Two Separate Hurdles
The decision’s second holding creates a “double burden” system:
Traditional Analysis (Pre-G-C-I-)
- Is the testimony credible?
- If credible, is it sufficient alone or does it need corroboration?
New Analysis (Post-G-C-I-)
- Credibility Analysis: Is the testimony credible?
- Independent Corroboration Analysis: Regardless of credibility, is the burden of proof met without additional evidence?
This means practitioners must now prepare for two separate battles rather than one comprehensive analysis.
Practical Implications for Immigration Lawyers
Immediate Action Items
1. Enhanced Client Preparation
- Mock questioning sessions focusing on direct, responsive answers
- Cultural competency training for clients about U.S. courtroom expectations
- Trauma-informed preparation that acknowledges but works around trauma responses
2. Evidence Gathering Revolution
- Proactive corroboration collection before any hearing
- Documentation of efforts when evidence isn’t available
- Alternative evidence strategies when traditional corroboration isn’t possible
3. Strategic Hearing Approach
- Direct examination techniques that elicit clear, responsive answers
- Preparation for cross-examination that might focus on responsiveness
- Record development that demonstrates good faith efforts to obtain evidence
Long-Term Practice Changes
Documentation Requirements
Every case file should now include:
- Evidence collection log showing what was requested and when
- Explanation letters for unavailable evidence
- Cultural competency notes explaining client’s communication style
Client Education
Practitioners must educate clients about:
- American courtroom expectations for direct answers
- The importance of saying “I don’t know” rather than being evasive
- How their demeanor will be evaluated alongside their words
Circuit Court Implications
The Coming Appeals
G-C-I- will likely face challenges in various circuits, particularly:
Ninth Circuit
Has historically been more protective of asylum seekers and may scrutinize the evasiveness standard for cultural bias.
Third Circuit
Has required more specific procedures for corroboration requirements and may push back on the “independent basis” holding.
Second Circuit
Has been more deferential to BIA decisions but has also emphasized trauma-informed approaches.
Constitutional Questions
The decision may raise Due Process concerns:
- Notice requirements: Should applicants be warned that evasiveness affects credibility?
- Cultural competency: Does the standard discriminate against certain cultural communication styles?
- Trauma considerations: Should trauma responses be protected from credibility penalties?
The Broader Policy Context
Post-2024 Immigration Environment
This decision comes amid broader efforts to strengthen immigration enforcement and raise barriers for asylum seekers. It reflects a judicial philosophy that emphasizes:
- Burden-shifting to applicants
- Skepticism of asylum claims
- Procedural barriers rather than substantive changes
International Law Considerations
The decision may conflict with international refugee law principles:
- Benefit of the doubt standards in UNHCR guidelines
- Non-refoulement obligations under international treaties
- Trauma-informed approaches recommended by international bodies
What Immigration Lawyers Need to Know Right Now
Immediate Checklist
- Review pending cases for potential corroboration issues
- Enhance client preparation protocols to address responsiveness
- Update evidence gathering procedures to be more comprehensive
- Prepare alternative arguments when traditional evidence isn’t available
Red Flags to Watch For
- Clients who give circuitous answers to direct questions
- Cultural communication patterns that might appear evasive
- Trauma responses that could be misinterpreted as lack of candor
- Missing evidence that could have been reasonably obtained
Strategic Considerations
When to Settle vs. Fight
G-C-I- makes fighting credibility determinations even harder. Practitioners should consider:
- Alternative forms of relief that don’t require credibility findings
- Voluntary departure in cases with weak corroboration
- Administrative closure where possible to buy time for evidence gathering
Appeal Strategies
When appealing adverse decisions post-G-C-I-:
- Cultural expert testimony to explain communication patterns
- Medical evidence documenting trauma-related behaviors
- Procedural challenges to evasiveness findings lacking specific examples
The Bottom Line: A New Era in Immigration Law
Matter of G-C-I- represents more than just another BIA decision- it’s a fundamental shift in how Immigration Courts evaluate protection claims. By expanding credibility analysis to include witness behavior and creating independent corroboration requirements, the BIA has raised the bar significantly for asylum seekers and their attorneys.
For practitioners, this decision demands immediate changes in case preparation, evidence gathering, and courtroom strategy. The days of relying primarily on client testimony are over; comprehensive corroboration and meticulous witness preparation are now essential for success.
Most importantly, G-C-I- reflects broader policy trends that emphasize skepticism over protection, procedure over substance, and burden-shifting over benefit of the doubt. Understanding these trends —and adapting to them —will be crucial for effective representation in the new immigration law landscape.
This analysis was prepared on August 19, 2025, the same day Matter of G-C-I- was decided. As circuit courts begin to interpret and apply this decision, additional developments are expected. Immigration practitioners should monitor circuit court decisions closely and consider the unique dynamics in their jurisdictions when implementing the strategies discussed above.
