2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-3-2004 

# S ummesh N aul v

. Att y Ge n U S A P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1762

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S umme sh N aul v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 421. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/421NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

________ NO. 03-1762

_________ SUMESH NAU L, Petitioner
v. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GEN ERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

_________ On Petiti on for Review of an Order of t he United States Department of Justi ce Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals BIA No. A79-429-861 Argued May 27, 2004 Be for e: R EN DE LL and CO W EN , Circuit Judges , and SC HW AR ZE R* , Distri ct Judge
. (Fil ed: August 3, 2004)
Vis uvana th an Rud rakum ar an [ARGUE D] Suite 2309 875 Avenue of the Americas New Y ork, NY 10001 Counsel for

Petit ioner
* Honorable Will iam W. Schwarzer, Senior Dist rict Judge for the Northern Dis tri ct of California, sitting by designation.2

Ma rk C. W alters Dou glas E. G insburg Lyle D. Jentzer St ep he n J . F lynn [ ARGUED] U.S. Department

of Justi ce Office of Immigrat

ion Litigati on P. O. Box 878 Ben Franklin St ation Washington, DC 20044 Counsel for

Respondent

__________

OPINI ON OF THE COURT

__________ RE ND EL L, Circuit

Judge
. Sum esh N aul, a citizen of G uyana, petitions for review of a dec ision by the Boa rd of Immigration Appeals ( “BIA”) denyi ng his appl ication for as yl um, withhol ding of removal, and protec tion under the Conventi on Against Tort ure (“CAT”). I n so ruli ng, the BIA affirmed without

opinion t

he findi ng of the Immigr ation J udge (“IJ ”) that Naul lacke d cred ibility becau se of incon sistenc ies betw een h is testimo ny and c ertain documentaryevidence pr esented. We have juris dicti on under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. For the
re as ons se t f

or th be lo w, we wi llgr an t Naul ’s pe ti ti on f orre vi ew.

I. Na ul w as the s ole w itness a t his asylum hearin g, and he pr ovid ed a n arrative of h is experie nces from which we glean t he foll owing facts. Naul is a 26 y ear-ol d citi zen of3

Guyana, and his et

hnicit y i s Indo-Guy anese. Naul ’s father was a supporter of the Peo ple’ s Pr ogr essiv e Pa rty (“P PP ”), o ne o f the two dom inan t po litical gro ups in G uyan a. The PPP controls the national gove rnment, and the opposi ng party , the People’s National Co ngre ss (“P NC ”), con trols the G uyanes e polic e forc es. Th e partie s essen tially
corres pond with the e thnic breakdown of the Guyanes e people – the PPP is mostl y I ndoGuyanese , and the PN C is mo stly Afro-Gu yanese. Nau l was no t an active PP P me mber, but afte r his f athe r die d, th e PP P h elpe d N aul s et up his o wn auto mo tive m ech anic sho p. In return, Naul di d election campaign work i n support of the PPP during t

he March 2001 elec tion
. On M arch 4 , 2001, as pa rt of this camp aign w ork, Nau l and two other me n we re dis tributi ng posters i n suppor t of t he PPP when they were c onfronted by a group of five Afro -Guyanese men w ho identified the mselves a s PN C m embe rs. The PN C m embe rs threatened them, a nd when Naul and the other s prote sted, the PNC members beat them and th reaten ed the ir lives. U pon return ing h om e, Na ul realize d that h e had cuts o n his arm and forehead. He sought medicaltreat ment for hi s inj uries , and at the asy lum heari ng he submitted a doctor ’s repor t confi rming his visi t and describing hi s inj uries . Naul report ed the i ncident

to the pol ice, but no action was taken. Naul clai ms that he l ooked for an Indo- Guyanese pol ice offi cer to s peak with re garding t he inci dent, but he coul d not find one .4

In O ctob er o f 20 01, w hile N aul w as w alkin g to a su per ma rke t nea r his h om e, a black van stopped next t o him, and two men pulled him into the van. Once inside, the
men remin ded N aul of how they had beate n him befo re, and then p rocee ded to beat h im again, this time threate ning him with a gun as well. They warned hi m that i f he did not close hi s auto shop, theywould killhim. Naul i ndicat ed thatthe men were AfroGuyanese mech anics w ho w orked in the village wh ere Na ul’s hom e and sh op w ere locate d. Th e me n also sugg ested th at he d isapp ear be caus e they did not w ant to se e him again i n their

vill age. Naul went to report the inc ident to the poli ce, who slappe d him and told hi m that they would put him in j ail i f he came to complai n again. Naul’s mother sub seq uen tly we nt to ano ther pol ice s tatio n in a ne arb y villag e to r epo rt the incid ent. Ho we ver , she wa s ad vise d th at the pol ice o ffic ers th ere c oul d do not hin g to help
. Fearing for

his saf etyand the saf

etyof his fami ly , Naul cl osed his auto shop and moved to Mahadeo Munsamy’s house t o hide. Munsamy, who was a PPP member and, accordi ng to Naul, a member of Parli ament, i nformed Naul that the government

was weak and cou ld n ot p rote ct him bec aus e the pol ice f orc es w ere c ont rolle d by th e PN C. Munsamy also sugge sted t hat he “go t o the next

countryand seek asy lum.” Fol lowing this advice, Naul contacted an agent who sol d him a fake pass port and a t icket to the Un ited S tates . Upon arrivi ng in Miami in December of 2001, Naul was questi oned and detai ned by I NS authorities, who noticed hi s fake tr avel documents . After ha ving a cre dible f ear5

intervie w w ith an IN S of ficer, the agen cy referre d N aul’s a sylum cla im to a n IJ fo r full consider ation. Naul conceded removabi lit y before the IJ , renewed hi s request for asy lum and w ithhold ing o f rem oval, a nd so ugh t protec tion un der C AT . In add ition to h is testimony, Naul submitted six affi davits from familymembers and fri ends, al ong with the medical report r elat ed to his firs t assault and various arti cles des cribi ng the treatment of Ind o-G uyan ese by the PN C p olice for ces . In her or al deci sion, the IJfound that Naul was not credible and deni ed his as yl um application. Th e IJ stated that there w ere material incon sistencies betw een N aul’s testimo ny and th e evid ence prese nted. F irst, the IJ n oted th at the m edica l certifica te documenting t

he treatment Naul r eceived after the March 2001 incide nt did n ot indic ate th at Nau l wa s t

re at ed fo r c ut s, whi ch he cl ai med wer e i nf li ct ed on h im byth e PN C members. Second, an affidavi t submitted bya Justi ce of the Peacestated that Naul was beate n by pro testors d uring the M arch 2 001 incide nt, wh ile Na ul testified that his assai lants were PNC m embers and did not mention a “pr otest .” Thir d, Naul t esti fied that his mothe r received threats tha t were co nveyed to her b y her neighbor, bu t his mother’s affidavi t menti oned that she had rece ived the threat s hersel f. Fourt h, while Naul testifie d that Munsamy, the PPP member who advised hi m to leave Guy ana, was a member of Parli ament, Munsamy di d not menti on that he held such a pos iti on in his affidavi t. And fi fth, th e I J vi ewedNaul ’s te stimo ny as bei ng g ene ra ll y in cr edi bl e, bas ed o n t he e xtre me and “hysteri cal” nature of some of Nau l’s comments.6

In the a lternativ e, the IJ s tated th at Na ul’s be atings w ere no t sever e eno ugh to consti tute pe rsecution, t hat he was not s ingled out because of hi s race or

other pr otect ed grounds, and that the “persecuti on” could not be attributed to t he governmen t. The IJ also fou nd t hat N aul h ad n ot sh ow n he wo uld be p erse cute d up on h is retu rn to Gu yana . Finall y, the IJ determi ned that there was no evi dence in the record i ndicating that relocation was i mpossibl e or unreas onable. The BIA affirmed the I J’s deci sion without opinion. On appeal, Naul cha llenge s the I J’s conclusions regarding hi s credi bili ty , the reasons fo r and seve rity of his past persecution, the reaso nableness of his fear o f future perse cution , the ex istence of a p attern o r practic e of p ersecu tion of ethnic Indian s in G uya na , an d h is a bi lity t o r elo ca te w ith in th e c ou nt ry.

II. Where the BIA affirms wit hout opini on, the IJ’s decisi on becomes the fi nal agency determ ination for p urpo ses of our re view . 8 C.F .R. § 1 003 .1(e)(4 ) (200 3); Dia v. Ashcroft , 353 F.3d 228, 243 (3d Cir. 2003) (en banc) . We exercis e plenary r eview over the IJ ’s concl usions of l aw, although the agency ’s interpret ation of the Immigr ation and Na tionality A ct (“IN A” ), and th e regu lations it h as pa ssed th roug h the p ow er gran ted to it under the I NA, are “subjec t to es tabli shed pri nciple s of deferenc e.” Coraggioso v. Ashcroft , 355 F.3d 730, 733 (3d Cir. 200 4).7

In reviewing factual findings contained in t he IJ’s decision, including adverse credib ility determin ations, w e app ly the subs tantial ev idenc e stand ard, w hich a llow s us to grant t he peti tion and va cate the IJ’s determi nation onl y i f the evi dence is “ so compelli ng that n o re aso nab le fa ctfin der cou ld fa il to f ind ” in N aul’ s fa vor . INS v. Elia s-Zacari as , 502 U.S. 478, 484 ( 1992). When we apply this standar d of revie w, we consider whethe r “the evi dence supporting [the IJ’s ] decis ion is substant ial, when viewed in the l ight t hat the record in it s entirety furnishes, including the body of evidence opposed to [the IJ’s] view.” Uni ver sa l Ca mer a Cor p. v. NLRB , 340 U .S. 474, 488 (1951). As we review an IJ’s determi nation t hat a petiti oner lac ks credi bili ty , we examine whether the IJ provi ded specif ic rea sons that

“bear a l egiti mate nexus t o the fi nding” that the p etitio ner ’s cla ims lack cred ibility. Bal as ubr ama nr im v. INS , 143 F.3d 157, 162 (3d Cir. 1998 ). We w ill generally defer to an IJ’s credibility findings, so long a s they are “conditioned on support in t he record. ” Dia , 353 F.3d at 249-50 (quoting El Moraghy v. Ashcroft , 331 F.3d 195, 205 (1st Ci r. 2003) ). However, “ minor incons ist encies i n the record . . . are not an a dequate bas is for an adverse c redibi lit

y fi nding.” Senathir ajah v. INS , 157 F.3d 210, 221 (3d Cir. 1998). The IJmust ins tead base such a findi ng on discr epancies that “ involve t he ‘heart of the asy lum clai m.’” Gao v. Ashcroft , 299 F.3d 266, 272 (3d Cir. 200 2).8 III. We wi llfi rs t a ddres s the IJ ’s ad ve rs e c re di bi li ty de te rmi na ti on and e xpl ai n wh y we must dis agree with it. Unlike many immigration cases that c ome before us on re view, the IJ here noted that Naul’s tes timony was entirel y internallyconsistent, and was also completel y cons ist ent with hi s written asy lum appli cati on. Because Naul di d not contradi ct himsel f in his testimony or his appl ication, t

he IJ re lied upon pe rceive d inconsi stenci es between Naul’ s account of his per secuti on and the documents present ed in con nectio n w ith his as ylum cla im. W e con clude that the incon sistenc ies me ntione d in the IJ ’s opini on, consi dered indi viduall y or in combination, do not go to the “ heart” of Na ul’s asylum claim ; theref ore, the y “are no t an ad equa te basis for an adve rse cre dibility finding. ” Senathir ajah , 157 F.3d at 221. The IJ fir st not ed a discrepancy between Naul’s testi mony, whic h indicated that he had c uts on his righ t arm a nd h is head after th e first be ating, an d the m edica l repor t, wh ich ind icated that N aul su ffere d fro m “b lunt trau ma” and “ post-tra um atic oe dem a” to his right arm an d forehe ad. W e do no t view these two piec es of evid ence – N aul’s testimo ny and th e repo rt – to be contra dictory at all; th e info rmatio n con tained in his testimony and t

he report are certainl y not

mutuall y exclusive. Because blunt trauma,
swe ll in g, an d c ut s are al l c ons is te ntwit h the type of

be atin g tha t Naul de sc ri be d, we actual ly view the medica l report as cor roborative of Naul’ s test imony, rather

than
con tr adi ct or y to it . Ad di ti ona ll y , t he r epo rt in di cates th atNaulwas i nj ur ed i n t he s ame9

two loca tion s – h is rig ht ar m a nd h is fo reh ead – as he in dica ted h ims elf in his te stim ony. Moreover, even i f we concluded that a discrepancy existed here, we would find such an inconsi stencyto be minor, and insuffi cient to provi de substantialevidence s upporti ng an adverse credibil ity

finding. Next, the IJ menti oned three discr epancies that s he notic ed when comparing Naul’s t esti mony to t

he affidavi ts fr om his fri ends and famil y members. Naul submitted affidavi ts si gned by hi s mother, Munsamy, his uncle, a chil dhood friend, a minister, and a Justi ce of the Peace . All s ix of the se affida vits general ly support t he major el ements of Na ul’s story. H ow ever, th e IJ fo cuse d on incon sistenc ies she perce ived w ith resp ect to three o f the a ffida vits. In o ne af fidav it, Nau l’s mo ther ind icates th at she le ft her h om e to live wit h her brother “due t o the number of threats [she] r eceived fr om [Naul’s] pol iti cal perse cutors .” Bu t, accor ding to N aul’s tes timon y, his moth er w as ne ver d irectly threatened; her

neighbor t old her of t

hreate ning comments made byPNC m embers who came looking for

Naul. In anot

her affi davit, a Justi ce of the Peaceindicated that he knew of the t wo alterc ations during which “Naul was being beat en by [a] gang of prote ster s.” But , a cco rd in g t o Nau l’ s t es ti mony , h e was bea te n byPNC memb er s who con fr ont ed h im; Naul made n o mention of any protests. In a third affidavit , Munsam y st ated that he was a PPC Com mitt ee member, but said not hing about hol ding a posi tion i n the Parl iament, as N au l in di ca ted in hi s te sti m on y.1 The IJ also n oted th e fac t that N aul, du ring an intervie w a t the airp ort, gav e his

gran dpar ents’ n ame s wh en as ked f or his p arents ’ nam es. H ow ever, N aul attem pted to explai n this in his testimony, stating that he misunders tood the que sti on and was late r prohibi ted from changi ng his answers before he si gned the i ntervi ew statement . Given the fact that w e are gene rally skeptical of reliance upo n statemen ts made in a irport inter view s, see Dia v. Ashcroft , 353 F.3d 228, 257 (3d Cir. 200 3), and given Nau l’s explanation, we do not think this would provide a permissible basi s for the IJ’s adverse credibi lit y determination. 10 Again, we do not fi nd any of t hese documents to affirmatively contradi ct any portion of N aul’s tes timon y. His m other c ould have “rece ived” threats p assed along to her by her neighbor , and the Justi ce of the Peace could ref er to members of

the opposi ng political partyas “prot ester s.” Munsamy might not have menti oned his r ole as a member of Parl iament , or

Naul cou ld ha ve confu sed hi s st atus as a r anki ng member o f the PPP with that of a government offi cial . Further, t he remaini ng three a ffidavi ts, each of which supports Naul’s t esti mony, were i n no way dis credited. But even i f we could countenanc e th e I J’ s i nt erpr et atio n of th es e d oc ume nt s a s c ont ra di ct or y to Nau l’ s t es ti mon y , w e conclude that the “discr epancies ” reli ed upon by t he IJ were pr ecisel y the ty pe of “minor inco nsis tenc ies” that a re u nre lated to th e he art o f N aul’ s asylu m c laim
. See Gao , 299 F.3d at 272 ; Senathir ajah , 157 F.3d at 221. Thus, t

hey ca nnot form a prope r basi s for rejec ting Naul’ s clai m via an advers e credi bili ty determi nation. 1 Finally, the IJ found that “the backg round d ocum ents presented . . . do not suppo rt [Naul’s] extremel y gener aliz ed and almost hysterica l claims . . . .” This chara cteri zati on of Naul’s t esti mony was presumabl y caus ed by ce rtai n broad st atements made by Naul2 We also note t hat si milar c laims of pe rsecution have been as sert ed in asy lum cases involvi ng other I ndo-Guyanes e peti tioner s, i ncluding two cases that resul ted in nonpre ced entia l op inio ns f rom our ow n co urt. See Bridgemohan v. Ashcr oft , No. 03-1763, 200 4 W L 85 732 8 (3d Cir. A pr. 22 , 2004 ) (not p reced ential); Arjune v. Ashcr oft , No. 01- 1468, 20 01 W L 168 3808 (3 d Cir. De c. 18, 2001 ) (not precede ntial). 11 near the conclusi on of his t esti mony, i ndicating that Indo-Guya nese people , inc luding government offi cial s, would continue fl eeing Guya na due to the abuses they s uffer at the hands of the PNC-dominat ed, Afro-Guy anese poli ce forces. While the I J might have
co rre ctl y be lie ve d t ha t N au l w as ex ag ge ra tin g a bi t in th e f in al p or tio n o f h is t es tim on y, his desc ription of the conditi ons in Guyana and his own experi ences the re appear to be confirmed bynumerous newspaper and magazi ne arti cles s ubmitt ed by Naul a s supplementa l background i nformati on. 2 And , nothing in the S tate Depa rtment’s Co untry Report is directly contradi ctory . His exagger ations convey hi s fear, which is suppor ted by his do cum entary su bm issions , as w ell as ind ication s in the C oun try Repo rt that eth nic tensi ons have res ulted i n inst ances of abuse by the poli ce, and we do not t hink that they undermine the rest

of his t esti mony suffi ciently to rej ect hi s account a s incr edible
. Thus, we conclude t

hat none of the reasons lis ted bythe IJamount to subs tanti al evidence to suppo rt an adverse c redibility determination here. Th e docu mentary evidence , some of which the IJ barely referenced in her opinion , seems to largely supp ort Naul’s account . Accordingl y, we are compelle d to rej ect the IJ’s finding t hat Naul l acked
cr ed ib ilit y.12 IV. After rej ecti ng Naul’s cl aim on the bas is of the adverse c redibi lit y determination, the IJ went on to examine, in the a lternative , whether Naul should be gr anted asylum
assum ing tha t he ha d pro vided credib le testim ony. Th e IJ co nclud ed tha t Nau l wo uld still not be el igibl e for asy lum, fi nding that Naul had not been s ubject ed to pers ecuti on on account of his ethnicity or politi cal opinions, t

hat Naul had not show n that the Guyanese government was unwill ing or unabl e to preve nt the t ype of t reatment Naul descri bed, and that Naul had not demonstr ated that he would be unabl e to avoi d future pe rsecution by relocating wit

hin Guyana. Because we conclude that each of t hese alternati ve findi ngs are laced with the same improper skepticism that was at the heart of the adverse credibility determination, we w ill remand the ca se to the agen cy in order to give the IJ
ano ther cha nce to co nsid er N aul’ s ap plica tion in lig ht o f ou r op inio n. See Ezeagwuna v. Ashcroft , 325 F .3d 39 6, 411 (3d C ir. 2003 ); see also INS v . Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16-17 (2002). To demonstrat e why a remand i s necessary , we will briefl y addr ess each of t he IJ’s alternative conclusions. Regarding past

persecution, t

he IJ thought that

neithe r inci dent described byNaul amounted to per secuti on. As to the firs t inci dent, the IJstated that getti ng “beaten up” for “str ay[i ng] out of hi s area i nto an Afro-Guy anese vil lage” di d not “ri se to t he levelof persecution.” As to the se cond, the IJ concl uded that the moti vation f

or the beating and threats w as eco nom ic in na ture, an d w as no t related to any of th e pro tected grou nds – in3 As w e have previously observed, “persecution” includes “ threat s to l ife , conf inem ent,

tort ure, and e conomic rest

rictions so s evere that the y cons tit ute a threat to life or freedom.” Fat

in v. INS , 12 F.3d 1 233, 124 0 (3d C ir. 1993) (emp hasis adde d).
4 As Naul assert s, an as yl um petitioner nee d not demonstr ate that the protected ground, suc h as ethn icity, w as th e ex clus ive m otiv ation beh ind the a llege d pe rsec utio n. See Cha ng v . I NS , 119 F.3d 1055, 1065 (3d Cir. 1997) (hol ding that asy lum appli cants nee d only offer evidence from which it is reasonable t o believe that the harm “was also mo tivated , at least in p art,” by pro tected grou nds); In reS-P- (Inte rim D ecis ion ), 21 I. & N. Dec. 486 (BIA 1996) (di scussi ng the burden of proof on peti tioner s in “mixed motive” cas es). 13 other words, Naul was beaten up byother competing mechanics because of the success of his b usin ess. W e qu estio n bo th o f the se c onc lusio ns. Na ul testified that du ring b oth o f his en coun ters w ith the P NC mem bers, h is assai lants threatened to ki ll hi m; the sec ond time, theydid so whil e wieldi ng a gun. 3 Furth er, his testim ony also seem s to esta blish th at there we re, at the v ery least, ethn ic
over tones to bo th enc oun ters. A ccord ing to N aul, the c ause of the first bea ting w as his stat us as an Indo- Guyanese and hi s assi stance to the PPP poli tica l party. His test imony also ind icated that the caus e of th e seco nd en coun ter w as his e thnicity, perh aps in
com binatio n w ith his p rofes sion; ac cord ing to N aul, an d ack now ledge d by the IJ , his Afro-Guyanese assai lants specifi call y i ndicat ed that theydid not want an Indian mec hanic working in t

heir vi llage
. 4 We perce ive tha t the IJ, in c onclu ding that the se attac ks did not am oun t to persecution or were not attributabl e to Naul’s nationa lit y, carri ed over certain f eeli ngs harbored r egarding Naul ’s cre dibil ity into her alte rnati ve findi ngs. Her di scussi on of the5 Naul also challenges the IJ’s conclusi on that he failed to demonstrate t hat there is a pattern or pra ctice o f pers ecutio n aga inst ethn ic India ns in G uyana. W e are in clined to agree w ith the IJ that no such pattern or practice ex ists in a case such a s this one, wh ere Naul belongs to the slightly dominant political and ethnic group, but we need not discuss the issu e furth er here in light o f ou r con clusion s on th e othe r issues . If N aul su ccee ds in show ing tha t he w as sub jected to pas t perse cution wh en the agen cy recon siders h is case in light of this opinion, he will be nefit from a presumpti on that hi s fear of fut ure pers ecuti on is w ell-f oun ded
. See 8 C.F.R. § 208. 13(b)(1) . Thus, hi s fail ure to s how a pattern or pr act ic e of per se cut io n i n Guy anawil l n otbe f at al to hi s a sy lu m cl ai m. 14 atta cks and her expl anati on of why they did not s upport Naul’ s clai m of past pers ecuti on
we re tainted by her relu ctanc e to be lieve N aul’s tes timon y regardin g the n ature o f his inju ries a nd t he r acia l ov erto nes of h is en cou nter s w ith th e A fro -G uyan ese PN C m em ber s. Thus, on remand, the IJ should reexamine the question of whether N aul suffered past persecution, a nd she should do s o in a manner t hat is consistent with t

his opi nion. 5 The IJ’s sec ond alternative c onclusion in volved the Guyanese govern ment’s willing ness a nd ab ility to control th e type of abus es de scribe d by N aul. N aul an d his mother sought

help from the localpolice forces on t hree separ ate occas ions, and each time the polic e expli citl y r efused to he lp them bytaking a report and investigati ng, despite the fact t

hat Naul was able to name the m en who assaulted him. The officers, wh o con stitute an arm o f the g over nm ent, of fered no ex plana tion fo r their ref usal o r their inabil ity to help Naul . However, the IJ was quite obviousl y ske ptica l of Naul’s clai m that he w as un able to find a n Ind o-G uyanes e polic e off icer. Sh e also s eem ed he sitant to belie ve that

Afro-Guyanese officer s responded to complaint s in the manner described by Naul, despi te the fact that Naul had offered numerous article s describing preci selythat6 Unlike the IJ, we do not think t hat Naul had anyfurther duty to vis it di stant

police stations i n search of an I ndo-Guyanes e officer , or t o contact higher- ranking members of the P PP -co ntro lled g ove rnm ent to rep ort th e fa iling s of the P NC -do min ated pol ice f orc es. Unheeded attempt s to re port multiple a ssault s, es pecial ly when considered i n light of the background documentar y evi dence offered by

Naul regardi ng exactl y this type of uncontrol led poli ce inaction, c an be suffic ient to show that t he government was unabl e or unw illing to p rev ent th e type of a bus e tha t Na ul su ffe red
. Cf. Surit a v . I NS , 95 F.3d 814, 819-20 (9th Cir. 1996) (findi ng past per secuti on where an Indo-Fi jian reported repeated robberi es, but

local police refused t o protect her or ar rest her assailant s). The fact that Naul is a member of t

he sli ghtly

dominant et

hnic and pol iti cal group i n a deeplydivided natio n is n ot fa tal to his c laim of p ast p erse cutio n. 15 sort of behavior on the part of local poli ce forces. The IJ’s reluct ance to credit these aspects of Naul’s t esti mony demonstr ates, again, that he r credi bili ty determi nation impacted her

view on this issue a s well. Therefore, she should revisi t the que sti on of whether Naul’s persecution is attributabl e to the Guyanese government in l ight of our discu ssion in this op inion, a s we ll as the b ackg roun d evid ence offe red b y Nau l. 6 And finall y, as to r elocation, t he IJ det ermined that the evidence offe red by Naul did not esta blish that h e w oul d ha ve b een una ble to saf ely relo cate wit hin Gu yana . Ho we ver, if, as we have outline d abo ve, N aul ac tually did p rove that he wa s sub jected to pas t per sec utio n, he ben efits fro m a pre sum ptio n th at int ern al rel oca tion is un reas ona ble. See 8 C.F.R. § 208. 13(b)(3) (ii ). To rebut that presumption, the burden would l ie with t he Government to est ablis h “by a preponderance of t he evidence t

hat, under allthe circumst ances, i t would be rea sonable for the appl icant

to rel ocate. ” Id. In li ght of our decisi on regardi ng the othe r iss ues rai sed by Naul, we conclude t hat thi s iss ue may requ ire furth er exa mina tion on rema nd as we ll.16 V. For th e reaso ns state d abo ve, w e con clude that the IJ’s ad verse credib ility determi nation was not

supporte d by subs tanti al evi dence in the record. We also conclude that the IJ’s alternative finding s were likew ise infected by imp roper skep ticism of N aul’s testimony. Accordingly , we will grant t he peti tion for

review, va cate the order of
remov al, and rema nd the m atter to the BIA with instructions to ref er the matter to the IJ for fur ther pro cee din gs c ons isten t wi th th is op inio n.

_________________________