765 Fed.Appx. 164 (9th Cir. 2019), 18-70974, Diallo v. Barr
|Citation:||765 Fed.Appx. 164|
|Party Name:||Ibrahima DIALLO, Petitioner, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.|
|Attorney:||Gary J. Yerman, Esquire, The Yerman Group, LLC, New York, NY, for Petitioner Patricia Bruckner, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San F...|
|Judge Panel:||Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 19, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Submitted March 12, 2019 [*]
Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
Gary J. Yerman, Esquire, The Yerman Group, LLC, New York, NY, for Petitioner
Patricia Bruckner, Trial Attorney, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Agency No. AXXX-XX9-181
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ibrahima Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys 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). We grant the petition for review and we remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the agencys adverse credibility determination because it was based on a trivial inconsistency and an omission from a credible fear interview that is unsupported by the record. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility finding not supported under the totality of circumstances). Further, the IJ failed to address Diallos explanation as to an omission from his asylum application. See Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088, 1092-93 (9th Cir. 2014) (IJ must consider and address all plausible...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP