Qilin Lin v. Loretta E. Lynch , 637 F. App'x 480 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 2 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QILIN LIN, No. 13-74139
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-212-974
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Qilin Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal.
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
*
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).
the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for review and we remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s reliance on
inconsistencies as to dates and an inconsistency as to whether Lin was six or seven
months pregnant when she saw a doctor, in finding her not credible. See Ren v.
Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th Cir. 2011) (“an asylum applicant’s failure to be
specific about the date of a traumatic experience is rarely probative of . . . her
veracity.”). When given the opportunity, Lin corrected herself and explained any
discrepancy in the dates of the events which occurred 14 years before her hearing.
See id. at 1087 (adverse credibility determination not supported by petitioner’s
error regarding his year of baptism, a “quickly-corrected innocent mistake”).
Further, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s reliance on Lin’s
omission from her written application of information the IJ elicited for the first
time after direct and cross-examination to support the adverse credibility
determination. See Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 973-75 (9th Cir. 2014) (adverse
credibility determination not supported by supplemental but not inconsistent
information elicited for the first time by the IJ’s and government attorney’s
2 13-74139
questions after direct examination).
Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Lin’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims on an open record for further proceedings
consistent with this disposition. See 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 13-74139