BIA Rules on Redacted Declarations in Asylum Cases

An Indian asylum seeker claimed members of an opposing political party attacked him twice because he supported the Mann Party. Six days before his immigration court hearing in October 2025, he filed a declaration supporting that claim. Two days later, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) fired back — submitting 12 declarations from other Indian political-opinion asylum cases that it said used nearly identical language. DHS argued the similarities proved the respondent's story was fabricated. The immigration judge disagreed, granted asylum, and worried about privacy and due process. The BIA reversed that decision.

What the BIA actually decided

The Board of Immigration Appeals ruled on two key points. First, redacting (blacking out) the names and identifying details of the 12 other asylum applicants is enough to protect their privacy under federal confidentiality rules at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6. The immigration judge had worried that using those declarations violated the privacy of the people whose cases they came from. The BIA said no — redaction satisfies the law, and the immigration judge was wrong to disregard the evidence on those grounds. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had already upheld this approach in Singh v. Bondi, 130 F.4th 1142 (9th Cir. 2025), affirming adverse credibility findings based on redacted declarations.

Second, the BIA clarified its earlier 2015 decision in Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658. That case set a three-part framework for handling "inter-proceeding similarities" — meaning when the government argues your declaration looks too much like someone else's. The three steps are: give the applicant meaningful notice of the similarities, give them a real chance to explain, and look at the full picture before deciding credibility. The immigration judge in this case read R-K-K- as also requiring the 12 other declarants to be available for cross-examination. The BIA said that reading is wrong. Because the declarations are used only to show similar words and phrases — not to prove the truth of what those other people said — cross-examination is not required.

The BIA sent the case back (remanded) to the immigration judge with instructions to properly analyze the documentary similarities. Immigration judges must now clearly identify on the record whether there are word-for-word repetitions, repeated narrative structures, identical grammatical mistakes, or unique factual details that appear across multiple declarations. Broad differences — like slightly different dates or locations — are not enough to dismiss the comparison evidence.

What to do

• Review your declaration carefully before filing. If your attorney drafted it, ask how it was written and whether similar language appears in other cases they have handled. Generic or template-style language can now be used against you.
• Respond specifically to any similarity notice. Under the R-K-K- framework, you must receive notice of the alleged similarities and a chance to explain them. Use that opportunity — provide concrete, personal details that distinguish your experience.
• Do not assume redacted declarations will be excluded. This ruling confirms that immigration judges must consider them. If DHS submits such evidence in your case, work with your attorney to challenge the specific similarities, not just the process.
• Consult an immigration lawyer before your merits hearing. The asylum application process now carries an added risk: DHS can compare your declaration to others in its database. An attorney can help you build a record that stands on its own.

What to do, step by step — see our guide “Immigration Court Rulings”.