What case exemplifies the principle that minor discrepancies in witness testimony do not necessarily discredit an entire account?

The choice of Kadia v. Gonzales is appropriate because this case illustrates the legal principle that minor inconsistencies in witness testimony may not undermine the overall credibility of the testimony as a whole. In asylum cases, it is recognized that witnesses may have different memories or perceptions of events due to the stress and trauma associated with their experiences. Therefore, a few small discrepancies do not invalidate an entire claim or account.

Kadia v. Gonzales serves as a crucial reference for asylum officers and immigration judges as they assess the reliability of testimonies. The ruling reinforces the understanding that the essence of a witness's account is much more significant than minor, non-material differences in details. This principle helps ensure that applicants for asylum are evaluated fairly and that their claims are not dismissed over trivial inconsistencies.