Asylum Denied: How Inconsistencies Killed One Woman's Case
You told your story under oath, submitted documents, and waited — then the judge said they didn't believe you. In September 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of asylum for Natalia Golban, a Moldovan national, ruling that contradictions between her testimony and her mother's letter — combined with demeanor concerns — gave immigration authorities enough reason to find her not credible. The decision is a stark reminder of how small inconsistencies can end an asylum case.
You filed your asylum application, told your story in court, and submitted supporting documents. Then the immigration judge said they didn't believe you — and the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed. That is exactly what happened to Natalia Golban, a citizen of Moldova, whose case the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided on September 17, 2026.
What the court found
The Ninth Circuit denied Golban's petition for review, upholding the immigration judge's decision to deny her asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT — a separate legal protection for people who fear torture by their government). The court found that the agency had substantial evidence to rule against her. Judges pointed to three specific problems: Golban's demeanor on the stand, the inherent implausibility of her account, and direct contradictions between her testimony and a letter written by her own mother. Under the REAL ID Act — the federal law that sets the rules for asylum credibility — even a single inconsistency that does not go to the heart of your claim can be enough to find you not credible.
Immigration Deadlines 2026 — Free
Download PDF with all key dates
Golban also argued that the immigration judge violated her right to due process. But the court refused to consider that argument. Why? Because she never raised it during her appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Under federal law, if you do not bring up an issue before the BIA, you lose the right to raise it in federal court. The Ninth Circuit called this a mandatory claim-processing rule — meaning the court had no choice but to ignore the argument entirely.
Why this matters for your asylum case
This case is a clear warning for anyone going through the asylum application process. Immigration judges watch how you answer questions, not just what you say. They compare your written declaration with what you say out loud in court. They read every supporting document — including letters from family members — and look for anything that does not match. A contradiction between your testimony and a relative's letter, even on a small detail, can cost you the case. And if you do not raise every legal argument before the BIA, you may permanently lose the right to make that argument in federal court.
What to do
- Before your immigration court hearing, review your written asylum application (Form I-589, the application for asylum and withholding of removal) line by line and make sure your oral testimony matches it exactly.
- Read every supporting document you submit — letters from family, country condition reports, medical records — and be ready to explain anything that could look inconsistent with your story.
- If you believe the immigration judge made a legal error, raise every argument in your BIA appeal. Do not save arguments for federal court — by then it is too late.
- Lawyers who handle asylum cases strongly recommend working with an immigration attorney before your hearing, not after a denial. An attorney can spot credibility risks in your file before a judge does.
A full breakdown of this topic — in our guide “Immigration Court Rulings”.
Fishkin Law Firm, New York
Credibility is the single biggest risk in asylum cases, and most applicants underestimate it. Under the REAL ID Act, an immigration judge can find you not credible based on demeanor alone — no single smoking-gun inconsistency is required. If you are preparing for a hearing, have your attorney conduct a full mock cross-examination using your written declaration and every document in your file, including letters from family abroad. And if you lose before the IJ, make sure your BIA brief raises every legal argument you may want to pursue — exhaustion is mandatory, and waived arguments are gone for good. Consult an experienced asylum attorney as early in the process as possible.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an immigration judge deny my asylum case just because they don't believe me?
Yes. Under the REAL ID Act, an immigration judge can deny asylum based on an adverse credibility finding — meaning they concluded you were not telling the truth. They can base this on your demeanor, inconsistencies in your statements, or contradictions with other documents, even if the inconsistency is not about the main part of your claim.
What happens if my testimony contradicts a letter from a family member?
That contradiction can be used as evidence that you are not credible. In Golban's case, the Ninth Circuit specifically cited the conflict between her testimony and her mother's letter as a key reason to uphold the denial. Before submitting any supporting letters, make sure the details in them match what you plan to say in court.
What is the BIA, and why does it matter for my case?
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) is the main appellate body for immigration court decisions. If an immigration judge denies your case, you can appeal to the BIA. This step is critical: any legal argument you do not raise at the BIA level is considered waived — you cannot bring it up later in federal court.
How much does it cost to file an asylum application?
Filing Form I-589 (the application for asylum and withholding of removal) is free — the fee is $0. However, if your case goes to immigration court or you need to appeal, having legal representation involves attorney fees. Many nonprofit organizations offer free or low-cost asylum legal help.