may add to the credibility of a witness, it is by no means indispensible. It is unreasonable to discredit the sworn testimony of a witness for the sole reason that there is no contemporaneous documentary evidence to support it, especially when there may be valid reasons why no such evidence exists. It is especially unreasonable to impose a contemporaneous documentation requirement on homeless people, who will likely never have documentation that they lived in a particular locale; on undocumented immigrants, who often work for low wages paid in cash and who seek to avoid creating official records of their presence; and on the mentally ill, whose disabilities often compromise their ability to comply strictly with evidentiary rules. Cf. Ladha v. INS, 215 F.3d 889, 900-01 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Finally, it is unacceptable to require aliens
holding that asylum seeker failed to establish well founded fear of persecution based on oppression of asylum seekers family unrelated to asylum seekers actions holding that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact regarding her retaliation claim because she failed to offer any evidence of a causal relationship between her involvement in protected activity and the adverse employment action holding that when an asylum seeker offers credible testimony she need not support her claim with any corroborating evidence because authentic refugees rarely are able to offer direct corroboration of specific threats holding that no corroborating evidence required from asylum applicants who have testified credibly holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired