N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N
UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

M IKE IW EB U KE ASHIEN,

Pe t i tione r,

v.
W ILLIAM P. B AR R , Attorne y Ge ne ra l,

R e sponde nt. No. 17-72226 Age n c y No. A208-125-370

M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls
A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 28, 2019 Se a ttle , W a s hington

B e fore : HAW KINS, M c KEOW N, a nd B YB EE, C irc uit Judge s.
M ike Iwe buke Ashie n (“ Ashie n” ) pe ti t i o n s for re vie w of the B oa rd of

Im m i gra tion Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm ing the I m m igra tion Judge ’ s (“ IJ” )
de nia l o f his a

pplic a t ion for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l , a nd C onve ntion Aga i nst
Torture (“ C AT” ). B e c a

use substa ntia l e vide n c e doe s not support the a ge n c y ’ s a dve rse



# FIL ED

SEP 20 2019

M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a t ion a nd i s not pre c e d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d by

Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.c re d ibility de te rm ina tion, we gra nt the pe t i t io n a n d re m a nd for furthe r proc e e dings.

W e de n y the pe tition with re spe c t to his C AT c l a im

. The tra nsc ript of this c a se re ve a ls se ve ra l ha l lm a rks o f a fa ulty t ra nsla tion:

e vide nc e of inc orre c tly tra nsla te d words, unre sponsive a nswe rs b y Ashie n, a n d Ashie n

a nd the tra nsla

tor e x pre ssing diffic ulty unde rsta nding one a nothe r a nd re quiring

re pe tition. Se e Pe re

z-Lastor v

. IN

S , 208 F.3d 773, 778 (9th C ir. 2 000). Eve n if the se
fla ws do not rise to the le ve l of a due proc e ss viola tion, “ f au l t y o r u n r e lia

ble

tra nsla tions c a n unde rm ine the e vide nc e on whic h a n a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ina tion
is ba se d.” He v . Ashc roft , 328 F.3d 593, 598 (9th C ir. 2003).
Inde e d, t he firs t r eason ide ntifie d by t he B IA to find Ashie n not c re dible wa s
Ashie n ’ s “ v a gue a nd unre sponsive te stim ony .” A c lose e xa m ina tion of the tra nsc ript,
howe v e r, re ve a ls tha t e ithe r the a nswe rs a c tua l ly we re re sponsive , or tha t Ashie n did

not a ppe a r to unde rsta

n d t he que stion the first tim e it wa s a ske d. Se e Per ez-Lastor , 208 F.3d a t 779 (“ the m ost pla usible c onc l usion is tha t h e did not unde rsta nd wha t wa s

sa id to him ” ).
Se c ond, the B IA c i te d a n inc onsiste nc y be twe e n Ashie n’ s te stim ony be fore the
IJ a nd a t the c re dible fe a r inte rvie w re ga rding t he num be r of ve hic le s Ashie n re pa ire d
for the B oko Ha

ra m . Howe ve r, the re is not suffic ie nt e vide nc e tha t the c re dible fe a r
i n t er vi ew w a s re lia

ble be c a use it wa s c onduc te d

in E nglish without a tra nsla tor, a n d

2the re c o rd is re ple te with insta nc e s whe re Ashie n ha d signific a nt d iffic ultie s be ing
unde rstood in English. Se e Singh v

. IN S , 292 F.3d 1017, 1022–23 (9th C ir. 2002) (re je c t ing re lia

n c e on c re dible fe a r inte rvie w whe re no tra nsla t or a nd no inform a tion

re ga rding “ how t h e inte rvie w wa s c onduc te d or how the d oc um e n t w a s pre pa re d or
whe the r the que stio n s a nd a nswe rs we re re c orde d ve rba tim , sum m a riz e d, or
pa ra phra se d” ).
Fina lly , t he B IA note d t

ha t Ashie n supplie d a n a d dition al d eta il a t the m e rits
he a ring a bout be ing hung upside down by the B oko Ha ra m
. Howe ve r , s u p p ly ing

a dditiona l de t a ils a t t

he m e rits he a ring of an e ve nt tha t is m e n tione d in the a sy lum

a pplic a tion in le s s de ta il is not a ground for finding a n a lie n not c re d ible

. Se e Bandari

v

. IN S , 227 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th C ir. 2000). This i s es peci al l y true whe n the

pe titione r fills out the a

pplic a tion pro se: “ [A] s y lum form s fille d o ut by

. . . pe ople
who

. . . a re una

ble t o re t a in c ounse l shou l d b e re a d c ha rita bly , e spe c i a lly whe n i t

c om e s to the ab s en ce of a c o m pre he nsive a nd thorough a c c o unt of a ll pa st insta nc e s
of pe rse c ution.” Smolniak ov a v

. Gonzale

s , 4 22 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th C i r. 2005) (inte rna l quota

t ion a nd c ita tion om itte d).

3In sum , none of t he re a sons c ite d b y the B IA c onstitute s ubsta ntia l e vide nc e to

s u p p or t its a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ina tion. W e the re fore gra nt the pe tition a n d

re m a nd for furthe r proc e e dings. 1

Howe v e r, we de ny the p e tition with re spe c t to Ashie n’ s c la im un d er CAT.
Ashie n ha d the burde n o f e sta b l ishing tha t it is m ore l ike ly tha n not he w i ll suffe r from

torture if re turne d to Nige ria a nd tha t this torture will be “ in flic te d by or a t the instiga tion of or with the c onse nt or a c q uie s c e n c e of a public offic ia l or pe rson a c ting
in a n offic ia l c a

pa c ity .” 8 C .F.R

. § 1208.18(a )(1). A lthough the B oko Ha ra m ha s be e n

a proble m in pa

rts of N ige ria , the c ountry is a c tive ly e nga ge d in c om ba t ing the group

a nd ha s m a de c onside ra

ble stride s sinc e Ashie n w a s a b duc t e d i n 2014. T he Nige ria n
g o v er n m en t is not “ willfully blind” to the a troc itie s c om m itte d by the orga

niz a tion

a nd doe s not sim

ply sta nd by “ be c a

use of the i r ina

bility or u nwillingne ss t o o ppose
it.” Se e Brom

fi el d v. Muk

ase y , 543 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th C ir. 2008). Thus, e ve n if

1 W e note tha t the B IA a lso c onc l ude d Ashie n would not be e l igible for a sy lum
or withholding of re m ova l b e c a use of the ba

r on suc h re lie f to individua ls who h av e provide d m at er ial support to a te rrorist orga niz a tion. 8 C .F.R

. § 1208.16(d)(2). Ashie n did t es t i f

y tha t he re pa ire d a t le a s t one c a r for the orga n iz a t ion, a lbe it unde r dure ss. T h er e i s no de m i nim us or dure s s e xc e ption to the m a te ria l support ba r, but if h e i s o t h er w i s e e ligible for re lie f, Ashie n m a y a pply t o the Attorne y Ge ne ra l for a disc re tiona

ry wa ive r. S

e e Ray amajhi v

. W

hitak e r , 9 12 F.3d 1241, 1244–45 (9th C ir. 2019). W e le a ve t

his m a tte r to the a ge nc y

on re m a nd.

4c re d ible , Ashie n c a nnot show it is m ore l ik el y t h an not he would be t orture d by t his group with the a c q

u ie sc e nc e of the Nige ria

n gove rnm e nt. 2

P E T I T I O N D E N I E D I N P A R T , G R A N T E D I N P A R T , A N D R E M A N D E D
. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r the ir own c osts on a

ppe a l.

2 Pe titione r’ s M otion to Ta ke Judic ia l Notic e (Dkt. #13) is de n ie d a s m oot.
5