NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 16 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZAHID HUSSAIN, No. 17-73072 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-924-883 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 3, 2023 San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Zahid Hussain (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Pakistan, seeks review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial by an immigration judge (“IJ”) of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Where, as here, the BIA adopts the IJ decision in full, provides its own analysis of the evidence and relevant law, and cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), we review both the BIA and IJ decisions. See Aguilar Fermin v. Barr, 958 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 2020). We review the Agency’s factual findings, including credibility determinations, for substantial evidence. See Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906, 908 (9th Cir. 2009). Under that standard, “administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 1. Substantial evidence does not support the Agency’s adverse credibility determination. The Agency is required to assess credibility based on “all relevant factors” and “the totality of the circumstances.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (asylum); see also id. § 1129a(c)(4)(C) (withholding). As such, “the agency cannot be selective in its evaluation of credibility; the agency’s analysis must be reasonable as a whole.” Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964–65 (9th Cir. 2014). Moreover, “our review will always require assessing the totality of the circumstances” to determine whether to “sustain[] or reject[] an adverse credibility determination.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). To start, substantial evidence does not support the Agency’s finding of an inconsistency, omission, or instance of vagueness in the following instances. Petitioner’s testimony about his injuries and treatment was not inconsistent with a 2 doctor’s note, see Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1044–45 (9th Cir. 2016); he was also not inconsistent about how he was threatened in June 2013, about his participation in the May 2014 protest, or about where he was treated in October 2014. Finally, Petitioner was not vague or evasive about how he obtained food in the aftermath of the October 2014 protest. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2020). Next, the Agency failed to address Petitioner’s “plausible and reasonable” explanations for two alleged inconsistencies related to the October 2014 protest. Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1093 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Chen v. I.N.S., 266 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals