Plamen Simeonov v. Eric H. Holder Jr. ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           APR 12 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    PLAMEN SIMEONOV SIMEONOV;                         No. 08-73429
    MARIYANA VALCHEVA
    SIMEONOVA,                                        Agency Nos. A098-156-809
    A098-156-810
    Petitioners,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted April 5, 2011 **
    Before:        B. FLETCHER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    Plamen Simeonov Simeonov and Mariyana Valcheva Simeonova, natives
    and citizens of Bulgaria, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
    (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
    *
    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).
    denying their 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, Garrovillas v. INS, 
    156 F.3d 1010
    ,
    1013 (9th Cir. 1998), and grant in part and deny in part the petition for review, and
    remand.
    Substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility
    determination in that the IJ’s finding that Simeonov’s testimony was vague and
    general is belied by the record, and the IJ failed to point to any specific and cogent
    reason for disbelieving his testimony. See 
    id. at 1013
     (generalized statements that
    do not identify specific examples of evasiveness or contradiction in the petitioner’s
    testimony are insufficient to support an adverse credibility determination). Further
    corroboration was therefore not required. See Kaur v. Ashcroft, 
    379 F.3d 876
    , 890
    (9th Cir. 2004). Because it is apparent from the record that the IJ listed all
    possible reasons to support an adverse credibility determination, we deem
    Simeonov’s testimony to be credible. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 
    555 F.3d 1089
    ,
    1095 (9th Cir. 2009).
    The agency concluded that, assuming credibility, Simeonov failed to
    establish past persecution because the harm he suffered did not rise to the level of
    persecution. Simeonov testified that police beat him severely during one arrest,
    2                                     08-73429
    that on another occasion police arrested, beat and detained him, his brother and his
    father for several days without food or water, and that his father died as a result of
    the beatings. He further testified that as a child, police forcibly removed Simeonov
    and his family from their home on account of their Roma ethnicity. The record
    compels reversal of the agency’s determination that the harm Simeonov suffered
    did not rise to the level of persecution. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 
    361 F.3d 1194
    , 1203
    (9th Cir. 2004) (“totality of circumstances” compelled finding of harm rising to the
    level of persecution where petitioner was detained twice, was hit and kicked,
    forced to do pushups, hit with an electric baton and beaten with a pole while tied to
    a chair).
    Accordingly, we grant the petition with respect to petitioners’ claims for
    asylum and withholding of removal, and remand to the agency for further
    proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 
    537 U.S. 12
    , 16-
    18 (2002) (per curiam); Soto-Olarte, 
    555 F.3d at 1093-96
    .
    In light of this disposition, we do not reach the agency’s determinations
    regarding changed country conditions and internal relocation.
    Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that petitioners are not
    entitled to CAT relief because they failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not
    that they would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Bulgarian
    3                                    08-73429
    government if they return to Bulgaria. See Silaya v. Mukasey, 
    524 F.3d 1066
    , 1073
    (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to the CAT claim.
    Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;
    REMANDED.
    4                                08-73429
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-73429

Judges: Fletcher, Clifton, Bea

Filed Date: 4/12/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024