NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 28 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DI WANG, No. 20-72854 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-800-959 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted February 11, 2022 San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW, IKUTA, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Di Wang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture for herself and her husband because, she asserts, she was forced to undergo an abortion in 2004 due to China’s family planning policies. After an asylum interview, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a Notice of Intent to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Deny (“NOID”) concluding Wang was not entitled to relief because her account of the forced abortion had too many similarities to other abortion-based claims to be credible. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found that Wang’s testimony lacked credibility due in part to inter-proceeding similarities. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Wang’s appeal, finding no clear error in the IJ’s inter- proceeding similarities finding. The agency also based its adverse credibility determination in part on Wang’s omission of certain details from her written declaration and her response to being confronted about one of those omissions. Wang timely filed a petition for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition and remand. The agency’s analysis of the alleged similarities between Wang’s application and other, unrelated applications was governed by Matter of R-K-K-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 658 (B.I.A. 2015). In Matter of R-K-K-, the BIA set forth a three-step process that IJs are required to follow when basing an adverse credibility determination on inter-proceeding similarities: First, the Immigration Judge should give the applicant meaningful notice of the similarities that are considered to be significant. Second, the Immigration Judge should give the applicant a reasonable opportunity to explain the similarities. Finally, the Immigration Judge should consider the totality of the circumstances in making a credibility determination. 26 I. & N. Dec. at 661. “Each of these steps must be done on the record in a manner that will allow the [BIA] and any reviewing court to ensure that the 2 procedures have been followed.” Id. Wang argues that the agency did not provide “meaningful notice of the similarities” and thus failed to comply with Matter of R-K-K-. For the following reasons, we agree. According to Matter of R-K-K-, to provide meaningful notice, “the Immigration Judge should identify the similarities between the documents or other evidence under consideration and notify the applicant of the similarities that need to be explained.” Id. The IJ “should provide the applicant with copies of the statements or documents in question and explain how the similarities appear to undermine the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals