NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 16 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IBRAHIN CUTIÑO ESPINOSA, No. 20-73145 Petitioner, Agency No. A213-361-729 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted May 12, 2022 Pasadena, California Before: WATFORD and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and AMON,** District Judge. Ibrahin Cutiño Espinosa petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision to uphold the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)1 denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 The BIA and the IJ are referred to collectively as “the Agency.” Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) and grant the petition and remand to the BIA for reconsideration of Cutiño Espinosa’s claims. 1. Factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, are reviewed under the highly deferential substantial evidence standard, meaning they “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Since the BIA issued its own decision but adopted specific portions of the IJ’s ruling, we review both, “[b]ut we ‘do not review those parts of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding that the BIA did not identify as “most significant” and did not otherwise mention.’” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014)). Here, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on one omission and one discrepancy in Cutiño Espinosa’s testimony but declined to reach the IJ’s other cited grounds. Neither reason cited by the BIA was an appropriate basis for finding him not credible. First, in his asylum application and his declaration, Cutiño Espinosa testified that in September 2016, he was beaten and threatened by Cuban police, who then detained him for five days. During his hearing, the IJ asked Cutiño Espinosa if he required medical treatment during this time, and Cutiño Espinosa responded that 2 he was taken to the doctor. The Agency erred in relying on Cutiño Espinosa’s failure to mention in his declaration that he was taken for a medical visit as one of the bases for finding him not credible. In general, “omissions are less probative of credibility than inconsistencies created by direct contradictions in evidence and testimony.” Lai, 773 F.3d at 971. Further, when “the omitted information was not inconsistent with the statements in [the petitioner’s] asylum application, his direct testimony, or any other evidence in the record” it is less likely to undermine his credibility. Iman, 972 F.3d at 1068. Here, Cutiño Espinosa’s mention of being …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals