Case ID: f-appx_404/html/0216-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YUFA REN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72377.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 22, 2010.
    Armin Alexander Skalmowski, Law Office of Armin Skalmowski, Alhambra, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Samia Naseem, Oil, Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Yufa Ren, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 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, Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir.2006), and we grant the petition for review, and remand.

The agency concluded Ren was not credible because he omitted an airport detention from his asylum application, and because of inconsistencies in his testimony regarding the name of the church he attends in the United States, the name of the pastor of this church, and the topic of the most recent sermon. However, the airport detention did not relate to the basis of Ren’s alleged fear of persecution, and the agency’s three perceived inconsistencies regarding Ren’s church in the United States are minor inconsistencies that do not go to the heart of his claim. See Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 660 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Bandari v. I.N.S., 227 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir.2000).

We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings to determine whether, taking Ren’s testimony as true, he is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2009).

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