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

Y ASHOV, Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71381 Age n c y No. A088-558-590
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 April 11, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : B EA a

nd M UR G UIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M OLLOY, ** Distric t

Judge
. Ily a Kudry a shov, a

native and c itiz e n of Arm e nia , e nte re d the Unite d State s in Se pte m be r 2006, without inspe c tion or pa role . He pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ Age nc y ” ) de nia l of a sy lum , withholding of 

# FIL ED M AY17 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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 Dona ld W
. M olloy , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of M onta

na , sitting by

de signa t ion.re m ova l, a

nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture (“ C AT” ). Kudry a shov c ha lle nge s the Age nc y ’ s de nia l of a sy lum 1 ba se d on a n a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion a s to se ve ra l e ve nts tha t took pla c e in 2006. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e grant the pe tition for re vie w, a nd re m and. Unde r the REAL ID Ac t, the Age nc y ne e d provide only

“ spe c ific an d
c oge nt re a sons in support of a n a dve rse c re dibility

de t e rm i nation,” and should
c onside r the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, sta tutory fa c tors, a nd othe r re le va

nt e vide nc e . Shre

stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th C ir. 2010) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks om itte d); se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii) (sta tutory fa c tors inc l ude de m e an o r, c andor, re sponsive ne ss, inhe re nt pla u sibility of te stim ony , c onsiste n c y

be t we e n te stim ony

and writte n sta

te m e n ts, c onsiste nc y

be twe e n te stim ony and writte n sta

te m e nts a nd othe r e vide nc e in the re c ord, a nd the inte rna l
c onsiste n c y

of te stim ony

and writte n sta

te m e nts). Inc onsiste nc ie s ne e d not “ ‘ go to the h e art’ of the pe titione r’ s c la im to form the ba s is of a

n a dve rse c re d ibility de te rm i nation.” Shre

stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1043 (c iting 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii)).

1 B e c a use Kudry a shov fa ile d to de ve lop his a rgum e n ts re ga

rding withholding a

n d C AT, we de e m

the se issue s a

b andone d. Se e Martine

z-Se rrano v . IN S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th C ir. 1996) (“ Issue s ra ise d in a brie f that a

re not supporte d by argum e n t

are de e m e d a

ba ndone d.” ). 2W e re vie wan a dve rse c re d i bility

de te rm inat ion for substa

ntia l e vide nc e . Id. at 1039. M any

of the re a sons theAge nc y gave for finding Kudry a shov not c re dible
we re ba se d on trivia l diffe re nc e s be twe e n his te stim ony and othe r e v ide nc e in the
re c o rd, a nd a re not suffic ie nt to support a n a dve rse c re dibility

finding. In his sta te m e nt, Kudry a shov a sse rte d tha t he wa s a rre s te d during a

m e e ting in the pa rk on April 29, 2006. At his re m ova l he aring, howe ve r, Kudry a shov te stifie d tha

t this e ve n t took pla c e in e arly April, e v e ntua lly

sta t ing it took pla

c e on April 7. Suc h “ m i nor disc re pa nc ie s in da

t e s tha t c annot be vie w e d a s atte m pts by the a pplic an t to e nha

n c e his c la im s of pe rse c ution ha ve no be aring on c re dibility .” Re n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079, 1086 (9th C ir. 2011) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd
a lte ra tion omitte d). Whe n a ske d how long he wa s in the hospita l a fte r be ing inte rrogate d a nd be a te n by the polic e , Kudry a shov re sponde d, “ About a we e k [indisc e rnible ] . I don’ t re m e m

be r for c e rta in.” The M e dic a l Eva luation indic at e s he wa s hospita liz e d for a

bout two we e ks. Eve n a ssum ing this te stim o ny wa s inc onsiste nt with them e dic a l re c ord, this inc onsiste nc y he lps Kudry a shov— a

hospita l sta

y of two we e ks rathe r tha

n one we e k indic ate s m ore se rious injurie s, whic h bolste rs his

3a sy lum c la im . It is unlike ly tha t Kudry a shov would ha

ve te stifie d

fa lse ly in a
m anne r a dve rse to him se lf. In a ddition, Kudry a shov sa id the hospita l pe rform e d “ e le c trothe ra py ” and
som e tre a tm e nt with ne e dle s. The M e dic a l Eva luat ion lists his tre atm e nt a s

“ [c ] om pre ss a nd e le c trode tre a tm e nt of lum ba r.” It is unc l e ar from

the re c ord wha

t

“ e l e c trode tre a tm e nt” e nta ils (i.e ., whe the r “ e le c trode tre atm e nt” m ay be
a c c om plishe d using ne e dle s), a

nd the re fore whe the r his te s tim ony is inc onsiste nt with them e dic a l re c ord. Kudry a shov a lso wa s una ble to na m e the m e dic at ion he took. B ut the nam e of the m e dic ation wa s “

Nootropil,”and it is not unre a sona ble that Kudry a shov
c ould not re m e m

be r that unusua l na

m e six y e ars late r. M ore ove r, Kudry a shov te stifie d tha t he se nt a c om pla int to the

“ Prose c utor’ s Offic e ” re ga

rding e xtortion by

the polic e , but c ould not provide the nam e of the prose c utor or the c o m

ple te a ddre ss whe re he se nt a c om pla int. Kudry a shov wa s a ble to re c a ll the stre e t na

m e (Isa akia

n Stre e t), a nd it wa s unre a s ona

ble to e xpe c t him to re m e m

be r the c o m

ple t e a ddre ss or na

m e of the prose c utor. In re ga rds to a house m e e ting of M oloka n s he atte nde d on Fe brua

ry 25, 2006, whe n a ske d wha

t da y of the we e k

M oloka ns “ usua lly ” m e e t, Kudry a shov
answe re d “ Sunda y s.” Whe n

told tha t Fe brua ry 25, 2006 wa s a

Sa turda y , 4Kudry a shov sa id, “ Q uite ofte n we ge t toge the r on Sa turda y nights a s we ll.” Signific a ntly , Kudry a shov wa s a ske d wha t da y of the we e k the group “usua lly ”
m e e ts; he wa s not a ske d

what da y of the we e k it “ a lwa

y s” m e e ts. M ore ove r,

“ usua lly ” wa s not a

te rm that he c hose , but ra the r tha t te rm wa s pa rt of the gove rnm e nt’ s que stion. The Age nc y

pointe d to Kudry a shov’ s “ non-re sponsive ” answe rs a bout the le ngth of his hospita

l sta y and the date of his a

rre st during the

pa rk m e e ting in support of thea dve rse c re d ibility finding. Howe ve r, Kudry a shov te stifie d using a n inte rpre te r, and his “non-re sponsive ” answe rs m ay be e xp la ine d by

c onfusion. The im m igration judge a c knowle dge d tha t “ [h] a d the e ve nts be e n c re dible in Fe brua ry , M arc h, April a

nd into M a

y of 2006, the y

would ha ve rise n to the le ve l of pe rse c ut[ion] on a

prote c te d ba sis of re ligion a nd im pute d politic a l opinion.” B e c a use the re c ord c o m

pe l s a finding of pa st pe rse c ution, Kudry a shov is e ntitle d to
a re b utta b le pre sum

ption of futurepe rse c ution. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.13(b)(1). B e c a use the Age nc y

did not a ddre ss the re a sona ble ne ss of re loc ation whe n the pe rse c utor is, in pa

rt, the gove rnm e nt, we re m an d to the Age n c y to a ddre ss re loc a tion. Se e K

aise r v . Ashc r oft , 390 F.3d 653, 659 (9th C i r. 2004). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WG RANT E D; RE M ANDE D
.

5