NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 31 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SYLVESTER A. MORFAW, No. 21-70450 Petitioner, Agency No. A213-186-758 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 8, 2022 Phoenix, Arizona Before: PAEZ, CLIFTON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Sylvester Morfaw, a citizen of Cameroon, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition and remand to the agency for further proceedings. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. “We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). We review those reasons “explicitly identified by the BIA” and “the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s oral decision in support of those reasons,” but not “those parts of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding that the BIA did not identify as most significant and did not otherwise mention.” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Legal questions are reviewed de novo. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010). Morfaw alleges that he escaped Cameroon after being detained and jailed by the police for more than a month because of his suspected membership in an Anglophone advocacy organization (the Southern Cameroons National Council, or SCNC), an episode that furnished the basis for his persecution and torture claims. The IJ found Morfaw not credible, pointing to inconsistencies between his testimony and the documentary evidence submitted to the IJ, his testimony during the credible fear interview, and answers he gave to a Customs and Border Patrol Officer (“CBP”) officer immediately following his entry into the United States at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. “[A]n adverse credibility determination must be made after considering ‘the totality of circumstances, and all relevant factors.’” Id. at 1040 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). “[R]elevant factors will include demeanor, candor, responsiveness of the applicant or witness, the inherent 2 plausibility of the applicant or witness’s account, consistency between the applicant or witness’s written and oral statements, internal consistency of each statement, and consistency of statements with other evidence.” Id. Informal interviews, such as the border interview, may be considered in an adverse credibility determination if they have “sufficient indicia of reliability.” Mukulumbutu, 977 F.3d at 926. Here, the border interview was conducted in English. Morfaw, however, speaks Cameroonian Pidgin English, a distinct language, and he utilized the services of an interpreter throughout the rest of the proceedings. He has challenged the agency’s reliance on the border interview on the grounds that, among other reasons, the lack of language assistance …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals