BIA Warns Asylum Applicants About Similar or “Boilerplate” Declarations
Matter of V-S-A-, 30 I&N Dec. 37 (BIA 2026)
Decided September 10, 2026
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has issued an important new decision addressing asylum credibility, the use of similar declarations from unrelated immigration cases, and the level of physical harm required to establish past persecution.
In Matter of V-S-A-, the BIA held that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may use properly redacted declarations from other asylum proceedings to argue that an applicant’s own declaration contains suspiciously similar or “boilerplate” language.
The decision is an important reminder that an asylum declaration should accurately reflect the applicant’s own experiences, memories, circumstances, and manner of describing what happened. Using standardized narratives or language copied from other cases can create serious credibility problems.
What Happened in Matter of V-S-A-?
The respondent was a citizen of India who sought asylum based on political opinion. He claimed that members of an opposing political party attacked and injured him on two occasions because of his support for the Mann Party.
Shortly before his merits hearing, DHS submitted declarations taken from 12 other Indian asylum applications. DHS argued that these declarations contained substantial factual and linguistic similarities to the respondent’s declaration and showed hallmarks of boilerplate language.
The personally identifying information of the other asylum applicants was redacted.
The Immigration Judge was concerned about due process and privacy issues and gave the other declarations little or no weight. Among other things, the Immigration Judge noted that the respondent could not cross-examine the individuals who had submitted the other declarations.
The Immigration Judge ultimately found the respondent credible and granted asylum.
DHS appealed.
The BIA Disagreed With the Immigration Judge
The BIA sustained DHS’s appeal and vacated the grant of asylum.
The Board held that properly redacted declarations from other asylum cases may be considered when determining whether an applicant is credible.
The BIA explained that removing personally identifying information sufficiently protects the confidentiality of the other asylum applicants for this purpose.
The Board also held that DHS does not have to make the applicants who submitted those other declarations available for cross-examination merely because their declarations are being used for comparison.
The reason is important: the declarations are not necessarily being introduced to prove that the events described in those declarations actually happened. Instead, they may be introduced for the more limited purpose of comparing the words, phrases, narrative structures, and factual details appearing in different applications.
What Kind of Similarities Can Matter?
The BIA emphasized that Immigration Judges examining different asylum declarations should look closely at such matters as:
word-for-word repetition;
repeated similarities in narrative structure;
unique and detailed factual similarities;
identical words or phrases;
the same grammatical mistakes or punctuation;
distinctive language; and
unnecessary but similar extraneous details.
The BIA found that the Immigration Judge in Matter of V-S-A- focused too heavily on broad factual differences between the cases rather than carefully examining the similarities in their language and structure.
This distinction is significant.
Two applicants may claim persecution by different political organizations, live in different places, or describe somewhat different motivations. Those differences do not necessarily resolve the credibility issue if their declarations contain unusually specific similarities in wording, structure, mistakes, or details.
Does Similar Language Automatically Mean an Asylum Claim Is False?
No.
The BIA did not establish a rule that similar language automatically makes an asylum application fraudulent or incredible.
The procedural protections established in an earlier case, Matter of R-K-K-, continue to apply.
Before inter-proceeding similarities are used in a credibility determination, the applicant must receive:
meaningful notice of the similarities;
a reasonable opportunity to explain them; and
consideration of the totality of the circumstances.
This can be extremely important.
There may be legitimate explanations for similarities between applications. For example, applicants may have used the same translator, preparer, attorney, organization, or source material. People who experienced similar events may also naturally describe certain circumstances similarly.
But after Matter of V-S-A-, an Immigration Judge cannot simply disregard striking similarities because the other applicants are unavailable for cross-examination or because their identities have been redacted.
Why This Decision Matters for Asylum Applicants
An asylum declaration is not simply a formality attached to Form I-589.
It can become one of the most important pieces of evidence in the case, and its wording may later be compared with statements made during an asylum interview, credible-fear proceedings, an Immigration Court hearing, prior immigration filings, and—as Matter of V-S-A- demonstrates—even declarations submitted in other applicants’ cases.
Applicants should therefore be particularly cautious about standardized or pre-written asylum narratives.
A declaration should not be treated as a template in which names, dates, political organizations, or locations are simply changed from one applicant to another.
Even where the underlying claim is genuine, extensive use of boilerplate language can create an avoidable credibility problem.
The BIA Also Addressed “Past Persecution”
Matter of V-S-A- contains another important holding.
The respondent described two physical attacks several months apart. According to the findings discussed by the BIA, he was pushed from a motorcycle and beaten with hockey sticks during one incident and was pushed, beaten, and kicked during another. He received medical treatment for bruising and swelling.
Nevertheless, the BIA concluded that, under the applicable legal standard and the circumstances presented, these incidents did not rise to the level of past persecution.
The Board emphasized that the assaults were relatively short, occurred several months apart, resulted in injuries requiring only antibiotics and anti-inflammatory medication, and were not followed by continuing threats during the several months before the respondent left India.
This does not mean that physical injury must always be severe or that medical treatment is required to establish persecution. The BIA expressly recognized that medical treatment is not a prerequisite.
Rather, whether mistreatment amounts to “persecution” depends on the circumstances and severity of the harm considered under the governing legal standard.
What Happened to the Asylum Case?
The BIA did not finally determine that the respondent was ineligible for all immigration protection.
Instead, it:
sustained DHS’s appeal;
vacated the Immigration Judge’s grant of asylum; and
remanded the case to the Immigration Court.
On remand, the Immigration Judge must reconsider credibility while giving appropriate weight to the redacted declarations and applying the required procedural safeguards.
If appropriate after reconsidering credibility, the Immigration Judge must also determine whether the respondent can establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. The Immigration Judge may also need to consider withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which had not previously been decided.
Practical Lessons for Asylum Applicants
Matter of V-S-A- makes careful preparation of an asylum case even more important.
An applicant should be able to explain the facts of the case in his or her own words. A declaration should be carefully reviewed for accuracy and consistency before it is submitted. Applicants should also understand what has been written on their behalf rather than simply signing a document prepared by someone else.
If a prior preparer, translator, consultant, or attorney drafted the declaration using standardized language, that issue should not be ignored. Depending on the circumstances, it may need to be identified, explained, and supported with evidence before it becomes a credibility problem at the merits hearing.
Likewise, applicants should not assume that an incident automatically constitutes “persecution” simply because it involved violence or required medical treatment. Immigration law distinguishes between serious mistreatment and harm that legally rises to the level of persecution, and that distinction can determine whether an applicant receives the presumption of future persecution.
Matter of V-S-A- is therefore important in two respects: it strengthens the ability of DHS and Immigration Judges to scrutinize similarities among asylum declarations, and it illustrates the demanding legal analysis applied to claims of past persecution.
This article provides general information about U.S. immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and the outcome of any particular case depends on its individual facts, procedural history, evidence, and applicable law.