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

ARD, Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-70445 Age n c y No. A209-875-470
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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 10, 2019 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d M UR GUIA, C i rc u it Judge s, a nd R AKOFF, ** Distric t Judge
. Siva lson Ge ffra rd (Pe titione r), a na tive a nd c itiz e n

of Ha i ti, pe titions for
re vie w of the orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a l s (B oa

rd) sum m a rily
a ffirm ing the de nia l of his a pplic a tion for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a nd 

# F IL ED
SEP 13 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Je d S. R a koff, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by de signa tion.prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (C AT). W e re vie w the de c ision

of the Im m igra tion Judge(IJ) whe n the B oa rd sum m a rily a ffirm s tha

t de c ision. Se e Ming Dai v . Se

s sions , 884 F.3d 858, 866 (9th C ir. 2018). W e re vie w fa c tua l findings, inc luding a dve rse c re d ibility de te rm inations, for substa ntia l e vide nc e , a

nd we m a y re v e rse only

whe n “ t he e vide nc e not only supports a

c ontra ry c onc lusion, but c om

pe ls it.” Yali W

a ng v . Se ssions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th C ir. 2017) (c ita tion, a lte ra tion, a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks
om i tte d). Give n the “ he a lthy

m e a sure of de fe re nc e to a ge nc y c re dibility de te rm i na tions” tha

t the R E AL ID Ac t re quire s, id. (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion
m a rks om itte d), we c onc lude tha t substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the a dve rse
c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion. Se e Shre

stha v

. Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1046-47 (9th C ir. 2010) (upholding a

dve rse c re dibility

finding whe re inc onsiste n c y wa s re le va

nt to “ the c rux of [pe titione r’ s] a pplic a tion for re l ie f” ). The re c ord e sta

blishe s tha

t Pe t itione r wa s inc onsiste nt a bout the tim ing of the atta c k tha

t le d to his de

pa rture , a nd he fa ile d

to e xpla in tha

t inc o nsiste nc y . Se e Don v . Gonzale

s , 476 F.3d 738, 742 (9th C ir. 2007) (e xpla ining tha t inc o nsiste nc i e s re ga

rding tim ing of e ve nts le a ding up to pe titione r’ s de p a rture are not trivia l). In his c re dible fe a r inte rvie w a nd a sy lum

a pplic a tion, Pe t itione r state d
2that

he wa s a tta c ke d by

a m ob “ the sa

m e da y ” a s the da

y his pa rtne r wa s kille d. Ye t, Pe titione r te stifie d a t his m e rits he a ring tha t the m ob “ atte m

pte d to kill [him] ,” whe n it re turne d “ two da

y s la te r.” Pe titione r a lso te stifie d inc onsiste ntly tha t the
m ob se a rc he d for him

on De c e m

be r 9, 2014, a

nd re turne d for him

on De c e m

be r, 12, 2014, thre e da

y s la te r. Pe titione r a lso c onc e de d tha t he told a C ustom s a

nd B orde r Pa trol offic e r that he did not fe a r pe rse c ution if re t urne d to Ha iti. His sta

t e m e nt c orrobora te s the
a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion be c a

use Pe titione r m a de the sta te m e n t while
una ware of the e vide nc e ne e de d to support a n a sy lum c la i m . B e c a use substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination, Pe titione r is ine ligible for a sy lum and withholding of re

m ova l. 1 Se e Mane

s v . Se ssions , 875 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th C ir. 2017) (upholding de nia l of a sy lum

ba se d
on a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination); se e also Guo v . Se ssions , 897 F.3d 1208, 1213 n.3 (9th C ir. 2018) (“ [F] a ilure to sa tisfy the lowe r sta

nda rd of proof re quire d to e s ta b lish e l igibility

for a sy lum

ne c e ssa rily re sults in a

fa i lure to de m onstra

te
e ligibility for withholding of de

porta tion.” ) (c ita

tion a nd a lte ra tion om i tte d).

1 B e c a use we hold tha

t Pe titione r is ine ligible for a sy lum an d withholding of re m ova l, we ne e d not de c i de whe the r Pe titione r wa s firm ly re se ttle d. Se e Sime onov v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th C ir. 2004). 3The IJ prope rly de nie d Pe titione r’ s C AT c la im be c a use it is pre dic a te d on the s a m e e vide nc e tha

t the IJ did not find c re dible , a nd the Unite d Stat e s De pa rtm e nt of Sta

te c ountry re port (C ountry

R e port) a lone doe s not c om pe l the
c onc lusion tha

t Pe titione r would m ore like ly tha n not be torture d if re turne d to Ha iti. Se e Angov v . Ly nc h , 788 F.3d 893, 910 (9th C ir. 2015) (a ffirm ing de nia l of C AT re lie f whe re pe titione r wa s not c re dible and did not pre se nt othe r e vide nc e showing it wa s m ore like ly tha n not tha t he would be torture d upon re t urn). The C ountry R e port m e ntions hostile soc ia l attitude s towa

rd “ outwa rd LGB TI [le sbia

n, ga y , bise xua l , tra

nsge nde r, and inte rse x] ide ntific at ion a nd e xpre s sion.” The C ountry

R e port a lso note s tha

t the Ha i tia

n Nationa l Polic e we re not
c onsiste n tly

willing to doc

um e n t or inve stiga

te LGB TI pe rsons’ c la im s of a b use , a nd tha t “ the polic e the m se lve s we re a fra i d of re pe rc ussions from the i r own
c om m unity if the y we re se e n to be supporting the c la im s of LGB TI vic tim s.” Howe ve r, the C ountry R e p ort furthe r state d tha t the Ha i tia

n gove rnm e nt

“ spe c ific a lly

tra i ne d ne w offic e rs on c rim e s c om m only c om

m itte d a ga inst the LGB TI c om

m unity ,” and tha

t the re we re no re ports of polic e offic e rs “ a c tive ly pe rpe t ra t ing or c o ndoning viole nc e a ga inst m e m

be rs of the [LGB TI] c o m

m unity .” Pe titione r a lso sta

te d tha t h e ha d not be e n ha

rm e d by Ha itia n gove rnm e n t offic ia ls or polic e offic e rs. C

f. Bromfie ld v . Muk

ase y , 543 F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th C ir. 2008)
4(de t e rm ining tha t a like lihood of torture

e xiste d whe re the gove rnm e nt wa s involve d in the torture of ga y m e n, hom o se xua lity wa s c rim ina liz e d, a nd the gove rnm e nt a c q

uie s c e d in the torture of ga y m e n by othe rs). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

5Silvalson Geffrard v. William Barr , No. 18

- 70445 MURGUIA, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part : I agree with my colleagues t hat Petitioner is in eligible for asylum

— not because the adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence but because the firm resettlement bar applies. However, as to withholding of removal and relief under CAT, I would reverse and remand for further proceedings because the IJ’s adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence. The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was based on three apparent inconsistencies: 1) Petitioner’s testimony regarding the date of the attack, 2) whether Petitioner and his boyfriend “came out” as gay m e n , and 3) Petitioner’s initial statement at the border that he had no fear of returning to Haiti . In my view, the first is trivial , the second is wholly unfounded , and the third was adequately explained . Indeed, even the majority disregards the second “inconsistenc y , ” and the IJ concedes that if the “only inconsistency in this case would have been the [third inconsistency] , the Court would not make an adverse credibility finding.” This leaves only the first “inconsistency” regarding the date of the attack. T he IJ and the majority find Petitioner not credible because, in his oral 

# FILED
SEP 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL Stestimony, Petitioner said that the mob attacked him on December 12, but in his written testimony, he said the mob attacked him on December 9. The IJ points out that, in one story, the angry mob went to Petitioner’s mother’s home on December 9 but did not find Petitioner, and therefore returned on December 12 to attack him. In the second version of his story , Petitioner retu rned to his mother’s home on December 9 and was attacked that same day. The IJ and the majority find th is minor date discrepancy detrimental to Petitioner’s application. I find it trivial. Ren v. Holder , 648 F.3d 1079, 10 8 9 (9th Cir. 2011) (reversing th e IJ’s adverse credibility determination because it was based on trivial inconsistencies) ; see also Zhi v. Holder , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091

- 92 (9th Cir. 2014) ( “[W]e conclude that substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s determination that the conflict in dates resulted in a legally significant discrepancy in the evidence
. ” ); Singh v. Gonzales , 403 F.3d 1081, 1090

- 91 (9th C i r. 2005) ( in a pre

- REAL ID Act case , the Court h eld that a minor discrepancy in dates could not support an adverse credibil ity determination). Other than mixing up the dates, Petitioner’s rendition of the horrifying events leading to his flight from Haiti is consistent : Petitioner was visiting with a friend when an angry mob murdered his boyfriend by stoning him and hittin g him with batons. Whether on December 9 or December 12, the mob found Petitionerat his mother’s home and attempted to cut him with a knife; Petitioner survived because he fled to his brother’s house. We know that “victims of abuse ‘often confuse the de tails of particular incidents, including the time or dates of particular assaults and which specific actions occurred on which specific occasion. ’ ” Ren , 648 F.3d at 1085

- 86 (citation omitted). And no one can conclude that Petitioner was attempting to enh ance his claims by placing the attack on December 9 versus December 12, or vice versa. Id. at 1086 (“ As we have repeatedly held, ‘ minor discrepancies in dates that
. . . cannot be viewed as attempts by the applicant to enhance his claims of persecution ha ve no bearing on credibility. ’ ” (citation omitted)). Considering the totality of the circumstances

— as the IJ was bound to do and as we are bound to do on appeal

— I cannot conclude that this trivial discrepancy provides substantial evidence to make an adverse credibility finding. Therefore, I r espectfully dissent in part.