The BIA Limits Cross-Examination in Asylum Cases: Matter of V-S-A-

The Board of Immigration Appeals issued Matter of V-S-A-, 30 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2026), on September 10, 2026. If you are seeking asylum in the United States, or if a family member is, this decision changes how the government can attack your credibility, and it changes what counts as harm serious enough to qualify as past persecution.

What Happened in Matter of V-S-A-

The applicant in Matter of V-S-A- is a citizen of India who filed for asylum based on his political opinion, claiming that members of an opposing party attacked him twice in India because he supported the Mann Party. Six days before his merits hearing, he filed his declaration explaining what happened. Four days later, the government responded by filing twelve declarations from other Indian political-opinion asylum cases, arguing that all twelve looked similar to the applicant’s declaration and suggested his claim was fabricated.

The government redacted personally identifying information from all twelve declarations before submitting them. The immigration judge was concerned about the privacy of the twelve other asylum applicants whose declarations were being shared across cases, and the judge was also concerned that the applicant in this case had no opportunity to cross-examine the twelve individuals, meaning no opportunity to ask them questions about their declarations under oath. The immigration judge gave the twelve declarations little to no weight, found the applicant credible, and granted asylum.

The government appealed. The BIA reversed and sent the case back to the immigration judge for a new decision under a corrected framework.

Matter of V-S-A- is the fifth precedential BIA decision published in the past three weeks that shifts asylum, bond, and removal law in the government’s direction, following Matter of DIJI, Matter of A-E-V-M-, Matter of S-K-E-, and Matter of Kamalov.

How the Government Can Now Attack Your Asylum Credibility

Immigration lawyers use the term “inter-proceeding similarities” to describe declarations from other people’s asylum cases that the government says look like yours. In Matter of V-S-A-, the BIA held that when the government uses inter-proceeding similarities to attack your credibility, two things are true that were not settled before.

First, the government can redact the personally identifying information from those other declarations, and that redaction alone is enough to protect the privacy of the people who signed them under the confidentiality regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1208.6(a)-(c). You will see the substance of the declarations, but you will not see the names, addresses, or other information that would identify the applicants they came from.

Second, the people who signed those other declarations do not have to appear in immigration court. Your attorney cannot cross-examine them. You cannot ask them questions about what they said, why they said it, or how their declarations came to be worded the way they were. The BIA reasoned that the other declarations are being offered for a limited purpose, which is showing similarities in words and phrases with your declaration, rather than being offered to prove that what those other declarations describe actually happened. Because the declarations are used for pattern-comparison rather than for the truth of what they say, the BIA held that cross-examination is not required.

The BIA clarified an earlier decision, Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I&N Dec. 658 (BIA 2015), which established the framework for how immigration judges are supposed to handle these inter-proceeding similarity challenges. Under that framework, you are still entitled to meaningful notice of the specific similarities the government is alleging in your case, and you are still entitled to a reasonable opportunity to explain those similarities. What you are not entitled to, the BIA has now held, is having the other declarants brought into court.

What the Immigration Judge Will Look for in Your Declaration

The BIA also clarified what the immigration judge is supposed to focus on when comparing your declaration with declarations from other people’s cases. The immigration judge in Matter of V-S-A- had looked at broad factual differences between the applicant’s case and the twelve comparator cases, including differences in political party membership and differences in the motivations behind the applicants’ political activity. The BIA held that the judge should have focused instead on specific textual features, including:

• Word-for-word repetitions between your declaration and the other declarations.
• Repeated similarities in narrative structure, meaning the way your story is organized on the page.
• Unique, detailed factual similarities that are unlikely to appear across unrelated cases by coincidence.
• Identical phrases or words.
• The same grammatical mistakes and punctuation.
• The use of distinctive language.
• Extraneous details that appear across multiple declarations without a clear reason to be there.

If your declaration contains language patterns that could appear in another person’s declaration, especially if your attorney has prepared many similar cases, the government now has explicit precedential support to use those patterns against you.

How Much Harm Counts as Past Persecution Now

The second holding in Matter of V-S-A- concerns what qualifies as past persecution. To win asylum based on past persecution, you have to show that you were seriously harmed in your country because of your race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Past persecution matters because it shifts the burden of proof to the government, requiring the government to show that country conditions have fundamentally changed before your fear of returning can be discounted.

The applicant in Matter of V-S-A- was beaten twice in India by members of an opposing political party. The first assault involved being pushed off a motorcycle and beaten with hockey sticks. The second assault involved being pushed, beaten, and kicked. He sought medical treatment both times, consisting of antibiotics and anti-inflammatory medication.

The BIA held that this harm did not rise to the level of persecution. The BIA relied on Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052 (9th Cir. 2021), a Ninth Circuit decision holding that a detention of less than a day, with verbal abuse and some physical abuse, did not qualify as persecution when the applicant did not suffer serious bodily harm. Because the applicant in Matter of V-S-A- required only basic medication, the BIA reasoned, the injuries were not serious enough on their own.

The BIA also addressed the applicant’s argument about ongoing threats. Under Matter of E-M-F-S-, 29 I&N Dec. 379 (BIA 2026), threats must be paired with evidence that the person threatening you actually had the ability to carry them out imminently. In Matter of V-S-A-, the two assaults occurred several months apart, and the applicant received no further threats between the second assault and the day he left India. The BIA held that the gaps in time undermined the imminence element.

If your case involves harm from assaults that required minimal medical treatment, your record needs to document the severity of the harm, any cumulative or psychological effects on you, and any continuing threats or ongoing risk you face. Medical records, mental health records, and witness affidavits can all help.

Who Is Most Affected by Matter of V-S-A-

Matter of V-S-A- arose out of an Indian asylum case, and its most immediate impact will be felt among Indian asylum applicants, particularly those making claims involving the Mann Party, the Indian National Lok Dal, Khalistan separatism, or opposition to the Bharatiya Janata Party. These are asylum categories where the government has been challenging credibility with boilerplate-pattern arguments for years, and Matter of V-S-A- gives them explicit precedential support.

The reasoning is not limited to Indian cases. Any asylum applicant from a country with a large asylum-seeking community in the United States could face the government using declarations from other people’s cases to attack credibility. Central American gang-based asylum, Chinese asylum claims involving reproductive rights, and religious persecution claims from countries with large diaspora communities are all exposed to the same argument.

If you are in one of these categories, the practical implication is that your declaration needs to be individualized to your specific experience. Standard narrative structures, common phrasings, and general descriptions of political-party membership or assault incidents are now evidentiary vulnerabilities. Talk to your attorney about how your declaration is being drafted, and make sure the account is in your own words and includes specific details that reflect what actually happened to you.

What Matter of V-S-A- Does Not Change

Matter of V-S-A- shifts the evidentiary environment for asylum credibility, but the decision has limits worth stating clearly.

You still have the right to meaningful notice of the specific inter-proceeding similarities the government is alleging in your case. You still have the right to a reasonable opportunity to explain those similarities. The immigration judge is still required to consider the totality of the circumstances in deciding your credibility, including any explanations you offer.

The confidentiality regulation still protects your own asylum application from disclosure to the public. The government still has to redact personally identifying information before submitting declarations from other people’s cases.

Withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture protection are separate forms of relief that may remain available in your case even if the asylum credibility analysis is challenging. These forms of relief have their own standards, and your attorney should always develop these claims alongside the asylum claim.

Federal courts of appeals will review BIA decisions on petitions for review. Circuit court precedent on these issues varies across the country, and the record built in your immigration court case is what a federal court will look at on appeal.

What to Do This Week If You Have an Asylum Case

If you have an asylum case in immigration court, on appeal, or being prepared for filing, several steps are worth taking now.

If your merits hearing is coming up, ask your attorney to review your declaration for language patterns that could appear in other people’s declarations. Where common phrasings or standard descriptions show up, work with your attorney to rewrite the declaration in your own voice, with unique specific details from your own experience. Prepare to explain, in your own words, any similarities the government may point out at your hearing.

If your case is on appeal to the BIA or in federal court, ask your attorney to assess whether Matter of V-S-A- changes anything about your record, and whether supplemental briefing is warranted in light of the decision.

If your case involves past persecution based on assaults or beatings, work with your attorney to document the severity of the harm, any cumulative or psychological effects, and any continuing threats or ongoing risk you face. Medical records, mental health evaluations, and witness affidavits can all help build this record.

If you are preparing to file a new asylum case, do not use template language in your declaration. The declaration should be written from your own account, in your own words, with specific details unique to your experience. Standard narrative structures are now evidentiary vulnerabilities.

Above all, do not represent yourself in an asylum case. Credibility determinations are technical, and the arguments the government now has under Matter of V-S-A- are best met by an attorney who can build the record accordingly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Matter of V-S-A- mean my asylum case will be denied?

No. Matter of V-S-A- changes the evidentiary environment for asylum credibility, but it does not automatically defeat any case. You still have the right to notice of the specific similarities the government is alleging, and you still have the right to explain them. Cases can and do prevail against inter-proceeding similarity challenges when the record is built to address the specific textual features the BIA has now emphasized.

Can I object when the government uses other people’s declarations against me?

You can object, and objections should be made on the record with specific reasons. Objections based on privacy will not succeed when the government has properly redacted the other declarations. Objections based on the lack of opportunity to cross-examine the other declarants will not succeed under Matter of V-S-A-. Objections based on the government’s failure to give meaningful notice of the specific similarities, or based on the immigration judge’s failure to apply the correct framework, remain viable.

Does this apply to me if I am not from India?

Yes. The reasoning in Matter of V-S-A- is not limited to Indian asylum cases. Any asylum applicant from a country with a large asylum-seeking community in the United States could face the government using declarations from other people’s cases to attack credibility in the same way.

What if I was beaten but did not require serious medical treatment?

The past persecution standard now looks more carefully at the severity of the harm. If you were assaulted and required only basic medication, your attorney should build the record with attention to the cumulative effect of the harm, any ongoing threats to you, and any psychological consequences. Past persecution is not the only path to asylum. Well-founded fear of future persecution is a separate showing your attorney can develop.

Can I appeal if my case is denied?

Yes. Immigration court decisions can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and BIA decisions can then be reviewed by a federal court of appeals through a petition for review. The record built at your immigration court hearing is what those higher courts will examine, which is why your attorney will want to build a detailed record from the start.

Where can I find Matter of V-S-A-?

Matter of V-S-A-, 30 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2026), is a precedential BIA decision issued on September 10, 2026, as Interim Decision #4244. It is available through the Department of Justice EOIR website.

Why Novo Legal

Novo Legal Group is a bilingual, community-rooted human rights firm. Every attorney on our team is fluent in English and Spanish. We publish same-day analysis when federal decisions shift the ground under our clients, because we know our clients need to make decisions with the current state of the law in view.

Our litigation team handles asylum representation in immigration court, appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals, petitions for review before federal courts of appeals including the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, and federal habeas corpus petitions. Matter of V-S-A- is the kind of decision where the record built at the immigration court determines whether your case survives credibility review on appeal. If you have a pending asylum case, a case currently on appeal, or a case being prepared for filing, contact us. We will tell you what we would do.

Related Reading