NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CUI LI, No. 19-71998 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-540-699 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 4, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and DONATO,*** District Judge. Cui Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) * 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 James Donato, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Li claims past and future persecution based on violations of China’s family planning policy. Specifically, Li alleges that she was subjected to a forced abortion and fears that she will be sterilized if she returns to China. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant Li’s petition and remand for further proceedings. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on the following grounds: (1) inconsistences between Li’s testimony, her prior statements, and documentary evidence; and (2) Li’s failure to provide sufficient corroborating evidence. On review of the record, neither of these reasons is supported by substantial evidence. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). 1. The BIA relied on four purported inconsistencies: (1) inconsistences in Li’s testimony regarding the symptoms she experienced from an intrauterine device (“IUD”); (2) the fact that Li waited over two years to have an IUD removed after entering the United States, despite her claim that it caused her intense pain and suffering; (3) inconsistences between Li’s testimony and a patient history form that she submitted; and (4) Li’s failure to include in her asylum application that her mother-in-law was beaten. Substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s finding that Li provided inconsistent testimony regarding her IUD symptoms. Li testified that family 2 planning officials inserted an IUD against her will on two separate occasions and that she suffered different complications following each procedure. Specifically, Li testified that she experienced excessive menstrual bleeding after the first, and no menstrual bleeding at all after the second. But the IJ lumped this testimony together and mischaracterized it as “inconsistent,” failing to appreciate that Li was describing the symptoms she experienced from two different IUDs. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that a purported inconsistency did not support adverse credibility determination because the IJ’s characterization of the petitioner’s testimony was inaccurate). Moreover, the BIA itself appears to concede that Li’s testimony on this subject may have been …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals