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 EI LIU, Pe t i tione r,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , JR
. , Attorne y Ge ne ra l , R e sponde nt. No. 11-71182 Age n c y No. A088-131-645
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 a nd Subm itte d M ay

12, 2014 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : NOONAN, W

ARD LAW

and FISHER , C i rc u it Judge s. M e i Liu, a

native and c itiz e n of C hina , se e ks re vie wof the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ orde r a ffirm ing a n im m igration judge ’ s de nia l of he r c la im s for a s y lum , withholding of re m ova l a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we grant the pe tition a nd
re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 

# FIL ED
AUG 25 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T his disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Whe re , a s he re , the B IA re vie we d the IJ’ s a d ve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination for c l e ar e rror, we “ look to the IJ’ s ora l de c ision a s a

guide to wha

t la y be hind the B IA’ s c onc lusion” but re vie w only those portions of the

IJ’ s c re dibility

finding tha

t the B IA ide ntifie d a s m ost signific ant. Te k lev . Muk ase y , 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th C ir. 2008) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d). “ W e re vie w fa c tua l findings, inc l uding a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inations, for substa ntia l e vide nc e . ” Garc ia v
. Holde r , 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th C ir. 2014). The B IA c ite d four ba se s for a ffirm ing the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding: (1) Liu’ s fa ilure to ra i se he r m othe r’ s a rre st a n d de te ntion until he

r te s tim o ny be fore the IJ; (2) Liu’ s fa ilure to m e ntion hom e visits from the polic e until he r te stim ony ; (3) Liu’ s fa ilure to de sc ribe phy sic a l ha rm she suffe re d until he r se c ond de c la ra tion; a nd (4) a n inc onsiste nc y

be t we e n Liu’ s writte n a

pplic a tion a

n d ora l te stim ony a s to the date s she atte nde d sc hool in C h ina . Substa

ntia l e vide nc e doe s not support the

a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm ination on the se grounds. Se e Lai v
. Holde r , --- F.3d ---- (9th C ir. 2014) (holding tha t substa ntia l e vide nc e did not support a n a dve rse c re dibility

finding whe re initia l ly

om itte d inform a tion surfa c e d during gove rnm e nt c ross-e xam inat ion a nd the a pplic ant’ s e xpla

nation for a

n
om i ssion wa s pla

usible and c onsiste nt with other a p plic a tion m a te ria ls).

2First, Liu re ve a le d for the first tim e during he r April 2009 te stim ony tha t he r
m othe r ha d be e n de t a ine d sinc e the m iddle of August 2007. B ut this informa tion
c am e to light a s a re sult of spe c ific que stions from the IJ a bout Liu’ s m othe r; Liu

“ did not volunte e r this inform a tion a s pa rt of [he r] dire c t te s tim ony ,” or a s “ a
sc ripte d, la st-m inute atte m pt to e nha nc e [he r] pe rse c ution c l a im .” Lai , --- F.3d at - ---. In a ddition, Liu a

de quate ly e xpla ine d tha

t she om itte d this inform a tion from he r de c la rations be c a

use , in he r words, “ I be lie v e I just writedown a bout m y se lf.” Se c ond, Liu m e ntione d for the first tim e during he r te s tim ony that the polic e
c am e to he r hom e a doz e n tim e s to ha ra ss he r. Aga in, Liu re ve a l e d this inform a t ion in re sponse to spe c ific que s tions from the IJ, not a s pa

rt of a sc ripte d
a ddition to he

r c la im
. Liu logic a lly

e xpla i ne d tha

t she did not inc lude this inform a t ion in he r de c la

rations be c a

use she did not know she

ne e de d to do so, give n tha t she wa s not hom e at the tim e of the visits a n d she he ard a

b out the m from he r m othe r. Third, Liu de s c ribe d the phy sic a l ha rm she suffe re d only

in he r se c ond de c la ra tion a nd in he r te stim o ny , not in he r origina l writte n sta t e m e nt. Howe ve r,

“ ‘ the m e re om i ssion of de ta ils is insuffic ie nt to uphold a n a dve rse c re dibility finding.’ ” Singh v . Gonzale s , 403 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th C i r. 2005) (a lte ra tion
om i tte d) (quoting Bandari v . IN S , 227 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th C ir. 2000)). Liu 3e xpla ine d c onsiste ntly , if not e loque ntly , throughout her te stim ony tha t he r se c ond de c la ra tion se rve d a s a

supple m e nt to he r first, so she c ould a dd de ta ils tha

t we re le ft out of thefirst. Fourth, Liu indic a t e d in he r a pplic a tion tha

t she a tte nde d

sc hool in C h ina only until July 2006, but also wrote in he r state m e nts tha t she wa s forc e d to unde rgo “ ide ologic a l e duc a tion” at sc hool be ginning in Se pte m b e r 2006. Liu, howe v e r, a de quate ly

e xpla ine d the re a son for this a ppa re nt inc o nsiste nc y , te lling the IJ tha t he r sc h ool ha d

a t hre e -y e ar program

an d a five -y e ar program , a

nd tha t she note d he r atte nda

nc e date s through he r c om ple tion of thethre e -y e ar program , but not for the

five -y e ar program

tha t she did not c om

ple te . S e e Shre stha v

. Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ [I] n e va luating inc onsiste nc ie s, the
re le va nt c irc um sta

nc e s tha t a n IJ should c onside r inc lude the pe titione r’ s
e xpla nation for a

pe rc e ive d inc onsiste nc y , a nd othe r re c ord e vide nc e tha t she ds light on whe the r the re is in fa c t an inc o nsiste nc y

at a ll.” (c ita

tion omitte d)). B e c a use the grounds c ite d by

the B IA for the a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation fa il, Liu’ s te stim ony m ust be ta ke n a s true for the purpose s of
re e v a luation of he r c la im s on re m and. Se e Te k le , 533 F.3d a

t 1055. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D; RE M ANDE D .

4