NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUSTAVO ADOLFO NAVICHOQUE, No. 18-70661 AKA Arnoldo Morales-Lopez, AKA Geraldo Navichoque, AKA Gustavo Agency No. A088-451-628 Navichoque, Petitioner, MEMORANDUM* v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 16, 2020 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and MENDOZA,** District Judge. Petitioner Gustavo Adolfo Navichoque, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA” or “agency”) * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Salvador Mendoza, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation. denial of his claim for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), including deferral of removal. For the reasons that follow, the petition is granted and remanded with instructions to grant CAT deferral relief. 1. The agency’s adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence. The government did not address the merits of petitioner’s credibility argument in its briefing, but instead suggested a remand to the BIA to reconsider its affirmance of the IJ’s credibility determination. But the government offered no reason in its briefing or during oral argument why the agency should revisit the credibility determination. We therefore decline to remand the credibility issue but instead review it for substantial evidence. The agency relied on petitioner’s previous use of an erroneous name and nationality as well as discrepancies between petitioner’s testimony and the factual basis of his prior nolo contendere plea to a state offense. Neither is sufficient to establish a lack of credibility. The use of a false name and nationality “does not detract from but supports [petitioner’s] claim of fear of persecution.” Turcios v. I.N.S., 821 F.2d 1396, 1401 (9th Cir. 1987). Further, although the BIA acknowledged at points that Navichoque pleaded nolo contendere, the BIA analysis treated a nolo contendere plea as if it were a guilty plea. A nolo contendere plea is “not an admission of factual guilt,” United States v. Nguyen, 2 465 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006), so Navichoque’s explanation at his hearing of the circumstances of his conviction did not contradict any earlier admission of guilt. Because “it is apparent from the record before us that the IJ and BIA have listed all possible reasons to support an adverse credibility determination, and they are inadequate in law or not supported by substantial evidence, then . . . on remand we can sensibly say that a petitioner should be deemed credible.” Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2009). We conclude that petitioner is entitled to be deemed credible on remand. 2. The agency’s alternative holding denying CAT relief because petitioner failed to establish government acquiescence is also not supported by substantial ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals