FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IBRAHIM ABDULKARIM IMAN, No. 17-72318 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A209-389-045 WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. OPINION On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 10, 2020 * Pasadena, California Filed August 25, 2020 Before: Bobby R. Baldock, ** Marsha S. Berzon, and Daniel P. Collins, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Baldock * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** The Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 IMAN V. BARR SUMMARY *** Immigration The panel granted Ibrahim Iman’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum and related relief on adverse credibility grounds, and remanded, holding that in light of the totality of the circumstances, and in the context of the administrative record presented, the evidence in this case compelled the conclusion that Iman’s testimony was credible. The panel concluded that to the extent the Board relied on the immigration judge’s findings that Iman’s testimony was nonresponsive or undetailed, substantial evidence did not support that determination. The panel explained that in order to base an adverse credibility determination on a petitioner’s nonresponsiveness, the IJ and the Board must identify specific instances, supported by the record, where the petitioner did not respond. The panel observed that both the IJ and Board failed to identify any instance during the merits hearing where Iman either refused to answer a direct question or declined to provide requested details regarding his persecution. The panel further explained that its own review of the record revealed no such instance, rather the record showed that Iman gave responsive and detailed answers about his claim. The panel also concluded that the omission from Iman’s asylum application of information about his sisters’ rapes, *** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. IMAN V. BARR 3 which he had previously disclosed to immigration officials during his credible fear interview, did not support the adverse credibility determination. The panel explained that although under the REAL ID Act omissions need not go to the heart of a claim to be considered when evaluating an applicant’s credibility, they must still be weighed in light of the totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors. The panel further explained that a collateral or ancillary omission that, under the totality of the circumstances, has no tendency to suggest an applicant fabricated her or his claim is insufficient to support an adverse credibility determination. The panel observed that Iman’s omission concerned adverse consequences for third parties, rather than Iman himself. The panel explained that because asylum claims ordinarily are centered around events and circumstances that the applicants have experienced directly, Iman’s failure (or decision not) to mention the sexual ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals