FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 02 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JIANRUI LIN, No. 12-73016 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-457-571 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 13, 2017** Honolulu, Hawaii Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Jianrui Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for review and remand. The BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility determination on the basis of inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony and supporting documentation regarding the date his wife was forcibly sterilized, and the total amount he was fined after his children’s unauthorized births. Lin contends the BIA erred by failing to consider his arguments that the IJ did not adequately address his explanations for those inconsistencies. We agree. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”); see also Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir. 2004) (“An adverse credibility finding is improper when an IJ fails to address a petitioner’s explanation for a discrepancy or inconsistency.”) (superseded by statute on other grounds). We grant the petition for review and remand Lin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims on an open record for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); Soto- 2 Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2009). In light of this disposition, we do not address Lin’s remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 3 12-73016 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Jianrui Lin v. Jefferson Sessions 2 November 2017 Agency Unpublished 8c5628f14dc19a93fe1c9d79e377f342873ae98c
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals