Charanjit Kaur v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 28 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARANJIT KAUR, No. 13-71538
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-938-586
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The 90-day stay of proceedings in this case expired on May 18, 2015. Thus,
respondent’s motion to lift the stay is denied as moot.
Charanjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d
966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014). In doing so, we review the adverse credibility reasons
explicitly identified by the BIA, and look to the IJ’s decision as a guide to what lay
behind the BIA’s conclusions. See id. We grant the petition for review and
remand.
The BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Kaur was not credible based on an
inconsistency and an omission. Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s
adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistency regarding when
Congress party members last visited Kaur’s mother’s home in India to look for
Kaur. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1085-86 (9th Cir. 2011); Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (“trivial inconsistencies that under the
total circumstances have no bearing on a petitioner’s veracity should not form the
basis of an adverse credibility determination”). Substantial evidence also does not
support the BIA’s adverse credibility finding based on Kaur not mentioning at her
credible fear interview that she sustained scratches/slashes as a result of being
2 13-71538
beaten by members of the Congress party in addition to the bruises or injuries that
she did mention. See Lai, 773 F.3d at 971 (noting that “the mere omission of
details” does not necessarily undermine an applicant’s credibility).
Thus, we grant the petition for review, and remand Kaur’s asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the agency, on an open record, for
further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S.
12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); see also Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089,
1095 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 13-71538