Ilya Kudryashov v. Jefferson Sessions

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 17 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ILYA KUDRYASHOV, No. 15-71381 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-558-590 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 11, 2018 Pasadena, California Before: BEA and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,** District Judge. Ilya Kudryashov, a native and citizen of Armenia, entered the United States in September 2006, without inspection or parole. He petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“Agency”) denial of asylum, withholding of * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Kudryashov challenges the Agency’s denial of asylum1 based on an adverse credibility determination as to several events that took place in 2006. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review, and remand. Under the REAL ID Act, the Agency need provide only “specific and cogent reasons in support of an adverse credibility determination,” and should consider the totality of the circumstances, statutory factors, and other relevant evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (statutory factors include demeanor, candor, responsiveness, inherent plausibility of testimony, consistency between testimony and written statements, consistency between testimony and written statements and other evidence in the record, and the internal consistency of testimony and written statements). Inconsistencies need not “‘go to the heart’ of the petitioner’s claim to form the basis of an adverse credibility determination.” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). 1 Because Kudryashov failed to develop his arguments regarding withholding and CAT, we deem these issues abandoned. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned.”). 2 We review an adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. Id. at 1039. Many of the reasons the Agency gave for finding Kudryashov not credible were based on trivial differences between his testimony and other evidence in the record, and are not sufficient to support an adverse credibility finding. In his statement, Kudryashov asserted that he was arrested during a meeting in the park on April 29, 2006. At his removal hearing, however, Kudryashov testified that this event took place in early April, eventually stating it took place on April 7. Such “minor discrepancies in dates that cannot be viewed as attempts by the applicant to enhance his claims of persecution have no bearing on credibility.” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). When asked how long he was in the hospital after being interrogated and ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals