NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 19 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FALILOU GASTON BONNAIRE, AKA No. 17-72966 Falilou Bonnaire, Agency No. A209-870-023 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 15, 2020** San Francisco, California Before: FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,*** District Judge. Petitioner Falilou Gaston Bonnaire (“Bonnaire”), a native and citizen of Senegal, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. (“BIA”) affirming the decision of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Bonnaire’s applications for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on an adverse credibility determination.1 We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing questions of law de novo and the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016), we grant the petition for review. The IJ deemed Bonnaire not credible because (1) he gave some “vague and non-responsive” answers when cross-examined, and (2) the letters of support he submitted from his mother and brother did not corroborate certain aspects of his testimony. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and identified five specific instances of what the BIA characterized as Bonnaire’s non- responsiveness. Because “the BIA reviewed the IJ’s credibility-based decision for clear error and ‘relied upon the IJ’s opinion as a statement of reasons’ but ‘did not merely provide a boilerplate opinion,’” we “review here the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA, and then examine the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s . . . decision in support of those reasons.” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008)). 1. Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s conclusion that Bonnaire lacked credibility. Two of the five instances that the BIA characterized as non- 1 Bonnaire does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his application for asylum. 2 responsive were attributable to technical problems with the videoconference by which Bonnaire’s hearing was conducted.2 First, when Bonnaire was asked how long he had been in a particular relationship, the interpreter conveyed Bonnaire’s response as “27 – 22 until I was 28.” But when Government counsel asked Bonnaire to confirm that answer, he immediately clarified: “The interpreter might have . . . misheard me, but I said I was 21 until I turned 22.” “[I]nconsistencies in testimony that possibly resulted from mistranslation or miscommunication do not support an adverse credibility finding.” Perez-Lastor v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 773, 781 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals