NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HONG T. VO, AKA Hong Thi Vo, No. 19-72333 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-818-865 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted July 9, 2020 Pasadena, California Before: PAEZ and BADE, Circuit Judges, and ZOUHARY,** District Judge. Dissent by Judge BADE Hong Vo, a citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from the order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Jack Zouhary, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and grant the petition. Under the REAL ID Act, we review BIA legal determinations without deference and BIA factual findings for substantial evidence. Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc). Substantial-evidence review is “highly deferential,” meaning a finding will be reversed “only if the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.” Angov v. Lynch, 788 F.3d 893, 898, 900 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Because the BIA conducted its own review and did not adopt the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision.” Bringas-Rodriguez, 850 F.3d at 1059 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, we may consider the IJ’s underlying decision “as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion[s].” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on three inconsistencies: (1) the date of Vo’s second arrest; (2) whether Vo’s mother was present at the police station after her initial release; and (3) Vo’s failure to disclose, prior to her hearing before the IJ, allegations of sexual assault by Vietnamese police. Substantial evidence does not support these inconsistencies as grounds for an adverse credibility determination. 1. First, the BIA found Vo’s testimony that she left detention and went home with her mother to be inconsistent with her statement to the asylum officer. 2 19-72333 During Vo’s asylum interview, the following exchange took place: Q: How were you released? A: On the morning of the 13th, they interviewed me one more time and then they released me and I have to find my way home by myself. Reliance on an inconsistency (which may not be inconsistent at all) related to such a peripheral detail ignores the reality that Vo was arrested and released several times within a period of days. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1085–86 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that abuse victims “often confuse the details of particular incidents, including the time or dates ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals