N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
GR IGOL AB R OYAN; e t a l., Pe titione rs,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-70563 Age n c y Nos. A095-200-424, A095-200-423, A095-200-427 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d and Subm itte d June 3, 2015 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : M . SM ITH a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s a nd LEFKOW , ** Se nior Distric t Judge
. Kim a Sa aky an, Grigol Abroy an, a n d Arm e n Abroy an, c i tiz e ns of Ge o rgia , pe tition for re vie w of a

n orde r of the B o ard of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) dism issing the i r a

ppe a l from

the Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing the ir



# FIL E D
JUL 09 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Joa n H. Le fkow, Se nior Distric t Judge for the Unite d Sta t e s Distric t C o urt for the Northe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion.a

pplic a tions for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252. For thefollowing re a sons, we grant in pa rt a nd de ny in pa rt the pe tition for re vie w a

nd re m a nd for furthe r c onside ra tion. 1. Standa

rd of R e vie w In re vie w ing the B IA’ s de c ision, we c onside r only the grounds on whic h it
e xpre s sly re lie d. Andia v . Ashc roft , 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th C ir. 2004) (pe r c uriam ). If we c onc lude tha t the B IA’ s de c ision c annot be susta ine d on those grounds, we m

ust re m and to the a ge nc y for a dditiona l inve stiga t ion or e xpla

nation. Id. ; se e also I.N

.S. v . Ve ntura , 537 U.S. 12, 16–17 (2002) (pe r c uriam ). Our re vie w is furthe r c o nstra ine d by the B IA’ s lim ite d inc orporation of theIJ’ s opinion. The B IA did not a dopt the IJ’ s opinion whole sa le ; rathe r, it re lie d on the opinion “ a s a sta te m e nt of re a sons.” Te k

le v . Muk ase y , 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th C ir. 2008) (c ita tion om itte d) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). W e the re fore “ re vie w he re the re a sons e xplic i tly

ide ntifie d by

the B IA, an d

the n e xam ine the re a soning
artic ulate d in the IJ’ s ora l de c ision in support of those re a sons.” Id. (c ita

tion
om i tte d). W e do not re vie w those pa rts of the IJ’ s opinion tha

t the B IA did not
m e ntion. Id. W e re vie w c re dibility

findings for substa

ntia l e vide nc e . A lmaghzar v

.
2Gonzale

s , 457 F.3d 915, 920 (9th C ir. 2006) (c ita t ion om itte d). Although this sta nda rd de m ands de fe re nc e , the B IA “ m u st ide ntify

spe c ific , c oge nt re a sons for a n
a dve rse c re dibility

finding, a

nd the re a sons m

ust . . . strike

a t the he art of the c la im for a s y lum .” 1 Singh v . Gonzale s , 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th C ir. 2006) (inte rna l
c ita tions a nd quota tion m arks om itte d), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by

Maldonado
v . Holde r , 781 F.3d 1107 (9th C ir. 2015), as modifie d in Maldonado v . Ly nc h , No. 09-71491, 2015 W

L 2343051, a

t *1 (9th C ir. M ay 18, 2015). “ M inor inc o nsiste nc i e s tha

t re ve a l nothing a

bout a n a sy lum a pplic ant’ s fe ar for he r sa fe ty
are n ot a n a de quate ba sis for a

n a dve rse c re dibility

finding,” K

a ur v . Ashc roft , 379 F.3d 876, 884 (9th C ir. 2004) (c ita tion om itte d) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

n d
a lte rna tions omi tte d), nor a re inc onsiste nc i e s tha

t the a pplic a n t did not ha

ve a c ha nc e to e xpla in. Don v . Gonzale s , 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th C ir. 2007) (c ita tion
om i tte d). 2. Substa

ntia l Evide nc e Issue The B IA a c c e pte d the IJ’ s c re dibility findings ba se d on inc onsiste nc i e s in the a pplic an ts’ te stim ony , inc l u ding thre e it c onc lude d we nt to thehe art of the ir
c la im s: (1) Kim a ’ s te stim ony tha t she did not, a

nd the n did, own he r hom e in

1 All thre e pe t itione rs a

pplie d for a sy lum

be fore the e ffe c tive date of the R EAL ID Ac t. R

EAL ID Ac t, Pub.L. No. 109-13, § 101(h) (2005). The re fore , pre -RE AL ID Ac t sta

nda rds gove rn our a

na ly sis. 3Ge orgia ; (2) Grigol a nd Arm e n ’ s c onflic t ing sta t e m e nts a bout whe re Arm e n

and his siste r have live d a

nd how ofte n the y

spoke to the ir pa

re nts; a n d (3) Arm e n’ s te stim ony tha t he worke d a s a

de live ry pe rson whe n he wa s pe rse c ute d by the polic e e ve n though his visa a p plic a tions liste d his job a s “ shoe m ake r.” W he the r Kim a owne d the house in whic h she re side d, without more , doe s not be ar on whe the r she wa s pe rse c ute d while living there or whe n she re t urne d to Ge orgia
. The B IA’ s c o m m e nt tha t Kim a ’ s e xpla

nation “ fa l ls fla

t” m e ans nothing
and, furthe r, fa ils to re spond to Kima ’ s te stim ony re fle c ting he r a

ppa re nt fa ilure to
c om pre he nd “ owne rship” a s unde rstood in the Unite d State s. C o nfusion re s ulting from m isc om m unic a t ion or m istra

n sla tion c annot support a

n a dve rse c re dibility finding. Se e Ak

inmade v . I.N .S. , 196 F.3d 951, 956–57 (9th C ir. 1999) (c ita tions
om i tte d). Sim ila rly , inc onsiste nc i e s a

nd untruthful sta

te m e n t s a bout whe re Arm e n a

nd his siste r have live d a

nd how ofte n the y

spoke to the ir pa

re nts do not re ve a l
anything a

b out the a p plic ants’ fe ar for the ir sa fe ty and thus do not go to the he art of the ir c la im s. Se e K

aur , 379 F.3d a

t 884 (c ita

tion om itte d). Arm e n’ s te stim ony

tha t he wa s working a s a

de live ry pe rson whe n pe rse c ute d during 2000 or 2001 is not inc onsiste nt with sta t e m e nts in his visa
a pplic a tions in 1999 a

nd 2001 tha

t he wa s e m

ploy e d a s a

shoe m ake r, a s he

4e xpla ine d he only worke d a s a shoe m ake r for a fe w we e ks. Eve n if it we re , the
nature of his work doe s not pe rta in to whe t he r his c la i m

of pe rse c ution is c re dible
and is the re fore m inor. The only inc o nsiste nc y

the B IA ide ntifie d tha

t doe s go to thehe art of the
c la im –a pote ntia l c o nflic t be twe e n Kim a ’ s sta te m e n t tha

t she is ha lf Abkha z ia

n a nd Arm e n ’ s birth c e rtific a te , whic h lists he r a s Arm e nia n–c annot support a

n a d ve rse c re d ibility

finding be c a

use Kim a wa s not give n a

n opportunity

to a ddre ss it. Se e C he n v . Ashc roft , 362 F.3d 611, 618 (9th C ir. 2004). The B IA a lso re lie d on om issions from pe titione rs’ a pplic a tions, whic h wa s im prope r a s the se ty

pe s of om issions a

re not a suffic ie nt ba sis for disc re diting te stim ony . 2 Se e A lv are

z-Santos v . I.N

.S. , 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th C ir. 2003) (c ita tion om itte d). Furthe r, pe t itione rs we re not give n a n opportunity

to e xpla in
m ost of the inc o nsiste nc ie s and om issions on which the B IA re lie d, se e Don , 476 F.3d at 741, a

nd e ve n whe n the y

we re the B IA did not a ddre ss the ir e xpla nations. Se e K aur , 379 F.3d a

t 887. In short, furthe r findings or e xpla nat ions a re ne c e ssa

ry . The B IA’ s

2 The re c ord doe s not e ve n support oneof the se om issions. The B IA obse rve d tha

t Arm e n fa ile d to sta

te in his a pplic a t ion tha

t he wa s be a te n at

the Pe da gogic a l Institute . Arm e n did, howe v e r, m e ntion thebe a ting in a de c la ra tion subm itte d with his a

pplic ation, fa

r in a dva nc e of the he aring. Se e C ordon-Garc ia v . I.N .S. , 204 F.3d 985, 993 (9th C ir. 2000). 5artic ulation of its re a sons doe s not supply the substa

ntia l e vide n c e ne e de d to support theIJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination. B e c a

use we c onc lude tha

t the finding wa s not prope rly

supporte d, we a lso c o nc lude tha t c orroboration wa s not
re quire d. Se e id. a t 890 (c i tation om itte d). Although we , like the B IA, a re trouble d

by Arm e n’ s subm i ssion of a fraudule nt doc um e nt, our c a se la w re quire s the B IA to e va l uate this doc um e nt in light of a ll of the c irc um sta nc e s in the c a s e . K

aur v . Gonzale

s , 418 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9th C ir. 2005) (c ita tions omitte d). As note d a bove , those c irc um sta

nc e s a re not wha t the B IA thought them

to be
. For the a bove re a s ons, we grant the pe tition for re vie w a nd re m and to the B IA so tha

t it m ay re c onside r pe titione rs’ a

pplic a tions for a sy lum , withholding of
re m ova l, a

nd C AT prote c t ion. W e re m and on a n ope n re c ord to give the B IA the opportunity

to e v a luate pe titione rs’ c re dibility
. Se e Soto-Olarte v . Holde r , 555 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th C ir. 2009). 3. Due Proc e ss Issue Pe titione rs a lso ra ise a

due proc e ss c l a im , whic h we re vie w de novo. Se e Yan Liu v . Holde r , 640 F.3d 918, 930 (9th C ir. 2011). B e c a use pe titione rs ha

ve not shown tha

t the y suffe re d a

ny pre judic e from

the IJ’ s c onsolida

tion of the i r
a pplic a tions, we c onc lude tha t the IJ did not viola

te pe titione rs’ due proc e ss rights.

6Se e O

shodi v . Holde r , 729 F.3d 883, 896 (9th C i r. 2013) (e n ba nc ); S oto-Olarte , 555 F.3d a

t 1092 n.1. The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l.
PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W G RANT E D in par t and DE NIE D in par t; RE M A NDE D.

7