Asylum Credibility Consistency Checker
Before filing a declaration, before an asylum interview or merits hearing, or when new prior statements surface, to catch every discrepancy while there is still time to address it with the client.
Credibility can decide an asylum case. Adjudicators compare what the applicant said at the border, on the I-589, in a declaration, at an interview and in court, and discrepancies in dates, places, names or the order of events can be used to question the whole account. Many discrepancies have innocent explanations (interpretation, trauma, a staff member's shorthand, a date converted from another calendar) but they need to be found and addressed before the government finds them.
This prompt puts each statement in its own tags and builds a table of every discrepancy, quoting each source, sorting by credibility risk and suggesting both a possible innocent explanation to explore and a neutral clarifying question for the client. It separates omissions from contradictions and refuses to decide which version is true. That judgment comes from the client, through counsel.
The table is a preparation tool, not a credibility finding. The attorney must verify each quote, discuss each item with the client through a qualified interpreter, and decide whether and how to correct or explain any statement. Never change a client's account to remove an inconsistency; the client's truthful explanation is what matters. Handle these materials under strict confidentiality given their sensitivity.
The Prompt
I represent an asylum applicant in [AFFIRMATIVE / DEFENSIVE] proceedings. Before [FILING / THE INTERVIEW / THE MERITS HEARING], I need to find every inconsistency across the client's statements so I can address them with the client. Each source is below in its own tags. <i589_narrative> [PASTE I-589 RESPONSES AND ATTACHED NARRATIVE] </i589_narrative> <declaration> [PASTE CLIENT DECLARATION] </declaration> <interview_notes> [PASTE ATTORNEY OR STAFF INTAKE AND INTERVIEW NOTES, WITH DATES] </interview_notes> <prior_statements> [PASTE ANY PRIOR STATEMENTS: BORDER OR CREDIBLE FEAR NOTES, PRIOR APPLICATIONS, VISA APPLICATIONS. LABEL EACH.] </prior_statements> Interpreter or language notes: [e.g., interviews conducted in Spanish through staff interpreter; client's first language is K'iche'] Compare all sources. Output a table: # | Topic (date, place, name, sequence, number, relationship, other) | What each source says, quoted with source label | Nature of discrepancy | Credibility risk (High / Medium / Low) | Possible innocent explanation to explore (translation, date conversion, trauma, note-taker error) | Clarifying question for the client Sort by credibility risk, highest first. Rules: - Quote each source exactly. Do not resolve conflicts or decide which version is true. - Flag omissions separately from contradictions. - Include minor or peripheral discrepancies too; do not drop them as unimportant. - Note where a discrepancy may come from date formats, calendar systems, transliteration of names, or interpretation. - Write clarifying questions in neutral, non-leading language suitable for a trauma-informed interview. After the table, list any key event that appears in only one source. This is a draft for my review; I will discuss every item with the client before amending any filing.
Example Output
A risk-sorted discrepancy table quoting each source, with possible innocent explanations and neutral clarifying questions, plus a list of events found in only one source.
Illustrative example — names, figures, and facts are fictional.
CREDIBILITY CONSISTENCY TABLE Applicant: "R.M." (fictional) | Defensive proceedings | Merits hearing [DATE] 1 | Date of first attack | HIGH I-589: "In March 2021 men came to my shop." Declaration: "The first time they came was in early 2020, around the rainy season." Credible fear notes: "first threatened 2021." Discrepancy: One-year difference in first incident. Possible explanation: Client may count from the first threat versus the first physical attack; check. Question: "Can you tell me about the very first time you had any contact with this group? What was happening in your life then?" 2 | Who was present at second attack | MEDIUM Declaration: "My brother Luis was with me." Interview notes (6/12): "Alone at shop when they returned." Discrepancy: Direct contradiction on witness presence. Possible explanation: Note-taker error, or two separate incidents. Question: "Who, if anyone, was with you the second time they came to the shop?" 3 | Police report | MEDIUM I-589: "I went to the police and they did nothing." Declaration: silent. Discrepancy: Omission. Possible explanation: Detail left out of declaration draft. Question: "After the attacks, did you go to any officials? What happened?" 4 | Town name | LOW I-589: "San Andres"; Interview notes: "San Andrés Xecul." Discrepancy: Likely transliteration and short form; confirm. EVENTS IN ONLY ONE SOURCE - Threatening phone call to applicant's mother (interview notes 6/12 only). Draft for attorney review. Discuss each item with the client before amending any filing.
Tips
- •Include any border, credible fear or prior visa records; inconsistencies with those statements are often the ones the government raises.
- •Note the interpreter and language for each source, because many apparent conflicts are translation or note-taking artifacts.
- •Watch for date conversions between calendar systems and day-month order before treating a date as a conflict.
- •Use the clarifying questions in a trauma-informed interview, and never amend a client's account without the client's own explanation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I fix inconsistencies by editing the declaration?
Only to reflect what the client actually says after you discuss the discrepancy with them. Never revise a client's account to make it consistent without their explanation. Where an earlier statement was wrong because of interpretation or note-taking, the usual approach is to explain the discrepancy, and how you do so is a judgment for counsel in each case.
How does the prompt handle translation issues?
It asks you to note the language and interpreter for each source, and it flags discrepancies that may come from date formats, calendars, transliteration or interpretation. Claude cannot tell whether a translation was accurate. Check doubtful passages with a qualified interpreter, and consider whether original-language notes or recordings exist.
What makes a discrepancy high risk?
Conflicts about core events (when, where, by whom and why the client was harmed) usually draw the most attention. But under the statutory credibility standard for asylum, an adjudicator may consider any inconsistency or inaccuracy, in the totality of the circumstances, whether or not it goes to the heart of the claim. Do not dismiss Low-rated items. The rating is only Claude's first pass; reassess it against the record.
Can I include government records like border interview notes?
Yes, and you should if you have them, labeled as prior statements. Those records often drive credibility questioning. Note any concerns about how they were taken, such as no interpreter in the client's best language, in the language notes line so Claude can flag related discrepancies.
Related Prompts
Get New Prompts Like This Every Week
Join the free Claude for Lawyers newsletter — weekly prompts, tutorials, and practice-specific guides.