FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 5 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ZHEZHU JIANG, No. 15-71731 Petitioner, Agency No. A098-463-015 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted April 21, 2023 Pasadena, California Before: WARDLAW and KOH, Circuit Judges, and MCMAHON,** District Judge. Petitioner Zhezhu Jiang (“Jiang”) claims that he fled the People’s Republic of China after the police arrested and abused him for his participation in and political support for unsanctioned religious activity. The immigration judge (“IJ”) * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Colleen McMahon, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. found Jiang not credible and denied his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) for that and other reasons. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed the appeal based on the IJ’s adverse credibility finding and the lack of corroborative evidence without ruling on any alternative ground reached by the IJ. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition in part and grant and remand in part. 1. We conclude that the six inconsistencies found by the IJ, on which the BIA relied to dismiss Jiang’s appeal, are either not inconsistent at all, are not supported by substantial evidence, or are minor inconsistencies that do not go to the “heart of the matter.” These purported inconsistencies alone cannot support an adverse credibility finding in a pre-REAL ID Act case.1 First, the IJ reasoned that Jiang had testified inconsistently about his treatment by police, the extent of the injuries he suffered, and the reason for his hospitalization. However, what the IJ called “inconsistencies” were almost all omissions and “the mere omission of details is insufficient to uphold an adverse credibility finding.” Bandari v. I.N.S., 227 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2000). Moreover, discrepancies that “cannot be viewed as attempts by the applicant to 1 Jiang filed his initial asylum application on May 2, 2005, prior to the May 11, 2005, enactment of the REAL ID Act, so we apply the pre-REAL ID Act standard to his application. Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1021 n.3 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 enhance his claims of persecution have no bearing on credibility.” Damaize-Job v. I.N.S., 787 F.2d 1332, 1337 (9th Cir. 1986). The perceived discrepancies in Jiang’s testimony minimized rather than enhanced the seriousness of his treatment by the police, which is the basis for his past persecution claim. As a result, the discrepancies do not support the adverse credibility determination. Second, the agency erred by concluding that Jiang’s inconsistent testimony about the length of his employment with the government of Hunchun City supported the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. As the IJ found, Jiang stated in his I-589 …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals