Yongduan Chen v. Gonzales , 194 F. App'x 183 ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1147
YONGDUAN CHEN,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A97-624-169)
Submitted: July 21, 2006 Decided: August 16, 2006
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin B. Xue, LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN B. XUE, P.C., New York,
New York, for Petitioner. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Tarra DeShields-Minnis, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Yongduan Chen, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming, without opinion, the
immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture. Because the Board affirmed under its streamlined process,
see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4) (2006), the immigration judge’s
decision is the final agency determination. See Camara v.
Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 366 (4th Cir. 2004).
Chen challenges the immigration judge’s finding that his
testimony was not credible, and that he otherwise failed to meet
his burden of proof to qualify for asylum. Credibility findings
are reviewed for substantial evidence. A trier of fact who rejects
an applicant’s testimony on credibility grounds must offer
specific, cogent reasons for doing so. Figeroa v. INS, 886 F.2d
76, 78 (4th Cir. 1989). “Examples of specific and cogent reasons
include inconsistent statements, contradictory evidence, and
inherently improbable testimony . . . .” Tewabe v. Gonzales, 446
F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations
omitted). If the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding
is based on speculation and conjecture rather than specific and
cogent reasoning, it is not supported by substantial evidence. Id.- 2 -
We have reviewed the evidence of record and the
immigration judge’s decision, and we find that the immigration
judge’s negative credibility determination is not supported by
substantial evidence. The immigration judge primarily relied on a
single misstatement by Chen as to the date of his wife’s forced
abortion, which Chen quickly corrected and otherwise consistently
reported, to find Chen not a credible witness. Reference to this
single, isolated misstep does not constitute specific and cogent
reasons supporting the finding. As the immigration judge based his
denial of all the requested relief on this credibility finding, we
must grant the petition for review and remand the case to the Board
for additional investigation or explanation. See INS v. Ventura,
537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (holding that generally, court of appeals
should remand case to agency “for additional investigation or
explanation”); Gonzales v. Thomas, 126 S. Ct. 1613, 1614 (2006)
(reasserting Ventura “remand rule”).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, vacate the
decision of the Board, and remand for further proceedings. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
- 3 -