NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED APR 21 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUDE JAFON, No. 20-70421 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-819-819 v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney MEMORANDUM* General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 9, 2021** Las Vegas, Nevada Before: NGUYEN and BENNETT, Circuit Judges, and HARPOOL,*** District Judge. Dissent by Judge BENNETT. Petitioner Jude Jafon timely seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). denial of relief from removal. Reviewing for substantial evidence, see Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010), we grant the petition. 1. Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. See Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that we review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence). The BIA found that Petitioner testified inconsistently, implausibly, and made material omissions. Our review of the BIA’s adverse credibility determination is highly deferential. “[O]nly the most extraordinary circumstances will justify overturning [the] adverse credibility determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d at 1041. Here, the inconsistencies and omissions cited by the BIA principally compared Petitioner’s accounts in earlier testimony with later and more formal hearings. But the later accounts were complementary, not contradictory. For instance, the BIA and IJ faulted Petitioner for making a “glaring” omission: he “did not mention [to CBP] that he had been harmed in Cameroon.” That misconstrues the CBP interview. First, Petitioner told CBP he left “because of the war” and also mentioned in the same interview his activities protesting and printing slogans, and that the authorities detained him. CBP asked Petitioner if he had been persecuted, and Petitioner answered “[y]es, because we speak political 2 opinions,” linking his harm to protected speech activity. Second, Petitioner adequately explained his abbreviated answers when pressed at the hearing: “Well, I believe I responded to the . . . Officer’s questions. He told me that he was not the one to listen to the details of my story and all of the testimony that I should leave them for the Court and for the Judge.” That is correct. The purpose of a CBP interview is limited and CBP officers are emphatically directed “not [to] ask detailed questions on the nature of the alien’s fear of persecution or torture: leave that for the asylum officer. . . . Do not make any evaluation as to the merits of the fear: that is the responsibility of the asylum officer.” Inspector’s Field Manual at 216. In Smolniakova v. Gonzales 422 F.3d 1037, 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2005), we found the IJ’s adverse credibility reasoning was flawed and emphasized that the petitioner’s asylum …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals