R-A-U-

page
582
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4184
Matter of R-A-U-, Applicant
Decided by Board February 27, 20261
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Based on inconsistencies and omissions in the record, the Immigration Judge clearly
erred in concluding the applicant presented a credible claim for asylum.
FOR THE APPLICANT: Mary J. Mazur, Esquire, Boston, Massachusetts
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Patrick K. Ddiba, Assistant
Chief Counsel
BEFORE: 	Board Panel: 	HUNSUCKER, GOODWIN, and GEMOETS, Appellate
Immigration Judges.
HUNSUCKER, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The applicant is a native and citizen of Morocco. 	The Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) appeals the Immigration Judge’s May 23, 2025,
decision granting the applicant’s application for asylum pursuant to section
208(b)(1)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(A) (2024).2 The record will be remanded.
The applicant bases his asylum application on his claim that he is a
member of the proposed particular social group of “bisexual male[s] of
Morocco.” The applicant testified that he was arrested in Morocco when he
was 14 years old because his father had participated in an antimonarch
1 	Pursuant to Order No. 6743-2026, dated April 21, 2026, the Acting Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of R-A-U- (BIA Feb. 27, 2026), as precedent in
all proceedings involving the same issue or issues. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3) (2026).
Editorial changes have been made consistent with the designation of the case as a
precedent.
2 	Because the Immigration Judge granted the applicant’s asylum application, the
Immigration Judge did not rule on the applicant’s application for withholding of removal
pursuant to section 241(b)(3)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A) (2024), and his
request for protection pursuant to the regulations implementing the Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984,
S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85 (entered into force for United States
Nov. 20, 1994) (“CAT”). 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) (2026); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a) (2020).

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4184
page
583
protest. 	He said that the police pressured his father to stop his activism or
they would charge the applicant with being a member of the LGBT
community. 	The applicant testified that he left Morocco when he was
15 years old and went to Turkey to play soccer. He said that he subsequently
entered Germany illegally and applied for asylum there. 	The applicant
testified that, when he applied for asylum, he was given an asylum stamp, a
monthly stipend, and allowed to remain in Germany during the pendency of
his application. According to the applicant, over the next 4 years, he went to
many other European countries, but he was repeatedly returned to Germany
because he had a pending asylum application there.3 	He testified that his
asylum application was ultimately denied in Germany. 	He then illegally
stowed away on a ship bound for the United States where he was discovered
and ultimately put into asylum-only proceedings.
On May 23, 2025, the Immigration Judge granted the applicant’s asylum
application, finding that he testified credibly, suffered past persecution in
Morocco, and has a well-founded fear of persecution in Morocco because he
is a bisexual male. The Immigration Judge also found that the applicant was
not firmly resettled in Germany prior to traveling to the United States and
that the applicant merited asylum as a matter of discretion. DHS argues on
appeal that the Immigration Judge erred by finding that the applicant
presented credible testimony in support of his claim. This Board must defer
to the Immigration Judge’s factual findings, including findings as to the
credibility of testimony, unless they are clearly erroneous. 	See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(d)(3)(i) (2026); see also Weng v. Holder, 593 F.3d 66, 71–72 (1st
Cir. 2010); Matter of S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 462 (BIA 2002).
DHS argues that the applicant’s testimony before the Immigration Judge
was inconsistent. We conclude that the Immigration Judge’s finding that the
applicant testified credibly is clearly erroneous. See INA § 208(b)(1)(B)(iii),
8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Matter of R-S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 629,
637 (BIA 2003) (stating that a “finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”
(citation omitted)). For example, the applicant testified that he was arrested
in Morocco when he was 14 years old because his father participated in an
antimonarch protest. The applicant testified that he was detained for 7 days
and badly beaten by the police. The applicant also told a social worker that
3 	The applicant testified that he was returned to Germany from other European countries
approximately 21 times.

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4184
page
584
he was badly beaten by several police officers in Morocco “so much that [he]
couldn’t breathe.”
In his first written affidavit, however, the applicant did not mention that
he was arrested or beaten by the police in Morocco. 	In his second written
affidavit, he did not mention being beaten by the police. 	Moreover, the
applicant’s sister testified that she did not notice any injuries to the applicant
when he was released from police custody. 	She also testified that the
applicant did not seek medical treatment upon his release. 	In addition, the
applicant submitted a written email from his father, who did not claim that
the applicant was beaten by the police. His father also did not mention that
he himself participated in a demonstration in Morocco.
Further, the applicant testified that he did not want to return to Morocco
because he was afraid of being harmed and prosecuted because of his sexual
identity. He also testified, however, that he is afraid of returning to Morocco
because he would be forced to serve his “mandatory military service.”
Notably, despite the applicant’s testimony that he: (1) applied for asylum
in Germany, (2) lived in Germany for 1 year with a monthly stipend and an
asylum stamp, (3) was returned to Germany on 21 occasions from other
European countries because he had a pending asylum application there, and
(4) received a written denial of his asylum application, he submitted no
documentation of this denial or of his proceedings in Germany.
Moreover, the applicant’s written affidavits are not consistent. In his first
affidavit, the applicant stated only that he applied for asylum in Germany but
that he wanted to go to Canada. 	In his second affidavit, he said that his
asylum application was denied possibly because he gave the “German police
a fake name because I was terrified of being returned home. I told them my
name was Reda Naoufel. They had no way to confirm my identity because
I did not have a passport or identification card.” In addition, before the
Immigration 	Judge, 	the 	applicant 	testified 	that 	his 	German 	asylum
caseworker was racist and aggressive and told him that “he had to go back”
to Morocco. He subsequently said that he was given a written denial letter.
On July 27, 2024, the applicant was interviewed by United States
immigration officials on board the vessel where he was a stowaway. 	The
applicant told the officials that his parents were no longer living. When asked
about this statement, he testified that he was combative and lied because he
thought the officer was being racist. The applicant also told the officials that
he had never been given a passport from any country and that he had

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 582 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4184
page
585
previously lived in Cairo, Libya, and Tunisia. 	He also did not tell the
officials that he had been arrested in Morocco.
Before the Immigration Judge, the applicant acknowledged that he
omitted from his asylum application that he used a false name in Germany.
When asked about this omission, he testified that he did not see where it was
asked on the application. 	The applicant also gave inconsistent testimony
regarding whether his asylum application allowed him to work while in
Germany. Further, the Immigration Judge found that the applicant “engaged
in certain illegal conduct, not carrying his passport and not presenting his
passport after destroying that passport in Turkey, and potentially giving a
false name or withholding his true identity, and evading removal from
Germany after learning that his asylum application was ultimately denied.”
On this evidentiary record, the Immigration Judge clearly erred in
concluding the applicant presented a credible claim for asylum. In granting
asylum, the Immigration Judge specifically did not address the applicant’s
alternative applications for withholding of removal and protection under the
CAT. Thus, we will remand for the Immigration Judge to adjudicate those
applications. 	On remand, the Immigration Judge may further consider the
applicant’s credibility if additional evidence merits such reconsideration.
The Immigration Judge should also address whether the applicant was firmly
resettled in Germany, and, if appropriate, alternatively address whether the
applicant demonstrated eligibility for relief or protection apart from his
noncredible testimony. 	In remanding, we express no opinion as to the
ultimate outcome of the proceedings. Accordingly, the following orders will
be entered.
ORDER: 	The Immigration Judge’s decision dated May 23, 2025, is
reversed.
FURTHER ORDER: 	The record is remanded to the Immigration
Judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and the entry of a
new decision.