NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HONGLI RU, No. 17-71037 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-902-841 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 9, 2019 Pasadena, California Before: TASHIMA and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and KATZMANN,** Judge. Hongli Ru, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Ru * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Gary S. Katzmann, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. applies for relief based on fear of persecution and torture for her political opinion. After her arrival to the United States, Ru joined the Los Angeles chapter of the Chinese Democratic Party and participated in its political advocacy. Finding inconsistencies in Ru’s testimony, the IJ made an adverse credibility determination. The IJ found that Ru had not demonstrated eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. The BIA then reviewed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding under the clearly erroneous standard, but ultimately “deem[ed] it unnecessary to reach the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding.” The BIA additionally concluded that Ru did not properly preserve her pattern-or- practice asylum claim, withholding claim, or CAT claim for the BIA’s review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and 8 C.F.R. § 1208.19, and we grant the petition and remand to the BIA. 1. As a preliminary matter, we address the issue of Ru’s credibility. “Due process and this court’s precedent require a minimum degree of clarity in dispositive reasoning and in the treatment of a properly raised argument.” Su Hwa She v. Holder, 629 F.3d 958, 963 (9th Cir. 2010); accord Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095, 1107 (9th Cir. 2011). When the BIA engages in only scant analysis of an argument—and thus we do not know the basis for the BIA’s decision—we cannot conduct a meaningful review. Delgado, 648 F.3d at 1108. Here, it is not clear the extent to which the BIA relied on the IJ’s reasoning 2 as to Ru’s credibility. At the beginning of its decision, the BIA states that it is “unnecessary to reach the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding.” Further on, however, the BIA states that “[t]he Immigration Judge’s findings of facts are not clearly erroneous” without specifying whether the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is included in that statement. During oral argument, the government only added to this confusion by both stating that we should presume Ru credible and that we should construe the BIA’s latter statement as affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. Because we cannot discern the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals