Case ID: f-appx_637/html/0352-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JINHUA HAN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-70588.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 9, 2016.
    Filed Feb. 18, 2016.
    Michael A. Rohr, Esquire, Law Offices of Michael A. Rohr, West Covina, CA, for Petitioner.
    
      Monica Antoun, Esquire, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Jinhua Han, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of her application for asylum.

The immigration judge’s adverse credibility determination, entered in the course of proceedings on Han’s asylum application, is not supported by substantial evidence. Under Yeimane-Berhe v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 907 (9th Cir.2004), the submission of a fraudulent document cannot serve as the sole basis for an adverse credibility determination without a finding, or at least an indication, that the petitioner knew or should have known that the document was fraudulent. Id. at 911; see also Khadka v. Holder, 618 F.3d 996, 1001 (9th Cir.2010). There has been no finding, and there is no indication in the record, that Han knew or should have known that her resident identification card was fraudulent. Her submission of that counterfeit document, on its own, cannot sustain an adverse credibility determination. See Yeimane-Berhe, 393 F.3d at 911.

We therefore grant Han’s petition for review and remand the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for reconsideration on an open record.

PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.