NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YANAN SUN, No. 20-70003 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-554-644 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 15, 2022** Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Yanan Sun, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant in part and dismiss in part the petition for review, and we remand. The BIA found no clear error in three factual findings the IJ relied on in support of an adverse credibility determination. Substantial evidence does not support two of those findings, specifically, the finding of an omission as to Sun’s exposure to Christianity and the finding that Sun failed to provide sufficient details as to her practice of Christianity. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (substantial evidence did not support the agency’s adverse credibility findings where they were based on mischaracterizations of the record); see also Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1065-66 (9th Cir. 2020) (petitioner's account determined sufficiently descriptive of pertinent events and where the agency did not identify which portions of testimony were lacking in detail). Thus, substantial evidence only supports the single remaining ground of the agency’s adverse credibility determination, specifically, the finding of inconsistencies between Sun’s testimony and supporting documents as to an encounter with police. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043-45 (overview of the analysis required to determine whether an inconsistency can support an adverse credibility determination). 2 20-70003 An adverse credibility determination must be made and reviewed “based on the ‘totality of the circumstances and all relevant factors,’ not a single factor.” See Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Thus, we grant the petition for review and we remand Sun’s asylum and withholding of removal claims on an open record to the BIA for reconsideration of the adverse credibility determination in light of the “totality of the circumstances [ ] and all relevant factors.” Id. at 1135 (emphasis omitted) (citation omitted); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2009). …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals