NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WAHID MANSARAY, No. 19-70130 Petitioner, Agency No. A216-272-760 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted July 9, 2020 Pasadena, California Before: BERZON and COLLINS, Circuit Judges, and KATZMANN,** Judge. Petitioner Wahid Mansaray seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of appeal of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. While Mansaray sought relief on a variety of grounds, the BIA rested on the Immigration * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Gary S. Katzmann, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. Judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility determination and did not reach the merits of Mansaray’s applications. We grant his petition for review and remand for further proceedings. 1. The BIA’s finding of an inconsistency in Mansaray’s testimony in support of his applications was not supported by substantial evidence. The BIA stated that Mansaray’s testimony, at the hearing, that the “Poro Secret Society” (“PSS”) “attacked him because he refused to join their group was in direct contrast” with his earlier “sworn statement” summarizing his interview before an immigration officer, in which he stated that he was attacked because the group was opposed to his “Limba” tribe. The asserted “direct contrast” is not supported by substantial evidence, because the record discloses that the immigration officer’s own account of the very same interview confirmed that Mansaray had in fact stated that he had been attacked because he did not want to join that group: “Subject stated he came to the United States because he wants to seek asylum. He stated that he was severely beaten by a group called Poro Secret Society in [Freetown], Sierra Leone. Subject stated that he is part of the Limba tribe and does not wish to join the Poro secret Society, so men from Poro came to his home and beat him really bad, leaving him hard of hearing. Subject stated that he feared for his life and did not want to join Poro, he just wanted to work and continue his studies in Medicine.” Moreover, the immigration officer’s account does not mention or suggest that Mansaray was claiming that he was targeted by anti-Limba violence, which further vitiates the BIA’s statement that it found “unpersuasive” Mansaray’s testimony 2 19-70130 that the sworn statement’s comment about the Limba tribe reflected a misinterpretation of what he had said during the interview. Mansaray otherwise testified consistently with the immigration officer’s summary, providing the same explanation in his credible fear interview (which occurred shortly after his arrival), his asylum application, and his hearing testimony as to why he was targeted. The BIA did not adequately address the purported inconsistency in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals