T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A N N A SH A H I N Y A N ; K A RO HA I R AP E T YA N; S UZ AN HA I R AP E T YA N, P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e y G e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74379 A ge nc y N os . A 078- 650- 659

A 078- 650- 660 A 078- 650- 661 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a y 8, 2013 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , P A E Z , an d IK U T A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P e t i t i one rA nnaS ha hi ny a n pe t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) ’ s or de ra f f i rm i ng the I m m i gr a t i on J udge ( “ I J ” ) ’ s de c i s i on denyi ng her app l i ca t i on for a sy l um and w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al . T he IJfoun d that 

# FI LED MA Y17 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSP e t i t i one r s K a r o a nd S uz a n H a i r ape ty a n a r e the c hi l dr e n of A nna 1 S ha hi ny a n a nd a r e the r e f or e de r i va t i ve be ne f

i c i a r i e s of

he ra s y l um appl i c a t i on. 2 S h a h i n y a n h a d n o te s t ab l i s h e d h e ri d e n t i tyo rth e i d e n t i t i e s o f h e rc h i l d r e n . He

1 c o n c lu d e d th a t w ith o u t p r o o f o f th e irid e n titie s , h e c o u ld n o t m a k e ac r e d ib ility det erm i nat i on or adj ud i ca t e S hahi nyan’ s c l ai m s; he there fore deni ed her appl i c a t i on. T he B I A a f f i rm e d on the gr ounds tha tS ha hi ny a n ha d f a i l e d t o pr e s e nt o b je c tiv e e v id e n c e o f

h e ran d h e rc h ild r e n ’s id e n titie s o ra n in ab ility to o b ta in au th e n t i c a t e d c o p i e s o f

th e i rb i rth c e rt i f

i c a t e s . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U . S. C. § 1 25 2. W e grantthe pet i t i on and rem and t o the B IA for f urther procee di ng s on an ope n r e c or d. 1. T he I J a c t e d c ontr a ry t o thi s c ourt ’ s de c i s i on i n Kal ou m a v. G on zales , 512 F . 3d 1073 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . I n Ka lo u ma , w e hel d thatan al i en do es no thave a hei gh t ened bu rden t o est abl i sh i dent i ty; thu s, he can p rove i dent i ty— l i ke any other e le m e n t o f

a n a s y lu m c la im

— th r o u g h c r e d ib le te s tim o n y a lo n e . I d. a t 1 0 7 8 - 7 9 . H e r e , how e ve r , the I J de c l i ne d t o m a ke a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on or a dj udi c a t e S ha hi ny a n’ s c l a i m s be c aus e he be l i e ve d tha the c oul d notdo s o w i thout n o n - te s tim o n ia l p r o o f

o f id e n tity . T h is w a s le g a l e rr o r , a n d th e B I A f a ile d to corr ec tthe error.3

2. T he B IA al so erre d i n con cl ud i ng thatS hahi nyan fa i l ed t o est abl i sh her i de nt i ty a nd the i de nt i t i e s of he rc hi l dr e n be c aus e s he di d nots ubm i t“ obj e c t i ve e vi de nc e ” of

the i ri de nt i t i e s . U nde rthi s c i r c ui t ’ s pr e - R E A L I D A c tc a s e l a w , the B IA cann otre qu i re corr ob orat i ng evi dence fr om a pet i t i on erabou tw ho m the IJhas n o t m a d e a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . Si ng h v. G on zales , 491 F . 3d 1019, 1 0 2 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) , s u p e rs e de d b y s ta tu te , R E A L I D A c tof 2005, P ub. L . N o. 1 0 9 - 1 3 , § 1 0 1 ( h ) ( 2 ) , 1 1 9 S ta t. 2 3 1 , 3 0 5 , as re cogn i ze d i n S i ng h v. H

older , 602 F . 3d 9 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ; Katar i a v . I . N . S. , 232 F . 3d 1113- 14 ( 9th C i r . 2000) . S i nc e the I J d i d n o tm a k e a n a d v e r s e c r e d i b i l i ty d e t e rm i n a t i o n i n th i s c a s e , th e B I A h a d two opt i ons : i tc oul d ha ve r e m a nde d t o the I J f orapr ope rc r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on, or i tcoul d h ave a cc ept ed S hahi nyan’ s t es t i m on y a s true. In the pre-RE A L ID A ct c ont e xt , how e ve r , i tw a s e rr orf orthe B I A t o r e qui r e c orr obor a t i ng e vi de nc e of i de nt i ty i n the abs e nc e of a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty de t e rm i na t i on. P E T I T I ON GR AN T E D A ND R E MAND E D.4Sh ah i nyan v. H older , N o. 08- 74379 I kut a , J . , w i th w hom O ’ S c a nnl a i n, J . , j oi ns , c onc urr i ng T o d a y th e c o u rt ap p lie s c ir c u it p r e c e d e n t th a t is c o n tr a ryto th e ap p lic ab le r e gul a t i on, c ontr a ry t o the B I A ’ s l ongs t a ndi ng i nt e rpr e t a t i on of tha tr e gul a t i on, a nd co n trary t o th e d eci si o n s o f o u r si st er ci rcu i t s. B o u n d b y th atp reced en t

— atl east for now

— I r el uct ant l y c on cur. W i th res pectt o p re -R E A L ID A ctca se s, w e have hel d thatpet i t i on er s c an carry thei r burden o f provi ng el i gi bi l i ty f or re l i ef base d o n thei r t es t i m on y a l on e, an d i m m i g rat i o n j u d g es can n o treq u i re an y co rro b o rat i o n o f th att est i m o n y u n l ess th e y f ir s t f in d th a t th e p e titio n e ris n o t c r e d ib le . See T i j an iv. H older , 628 F . 3d 1 0 7 1 , 1 0 8 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) . T hi s pre ce denti s pl ai nl y c on traryt o t extof the appl i cabl e r egul at i on , w hi ch m erel y p e rm its a n i mmi g r a t i o n j u d g e t o r e l y o n c r e d i b l e t e s t i mo n y . 8 C. F. R. § 2 08 . 13 (a ) ( “ T he t es t i m on y of the appl i cant , i f c re di bl e, m ay be s u f f ic ie n t to sust ai n the bu rden of proo f w i tho utcorr ob orat i on . ” ( em ph as i s a dd ed)) . M ore i m po rt ant , the rul e i s c on traryt o the B IA ’ s ow n l on gst andi ng i nt erpret at i on of 8 C .F .R . § 2 0 8 .1 3 ( a ) . In re S-M-J , 21 I . & N . D e c . 722, 724, 729 ( B I A 1997) ( hol di ng tha t , unde r§ 208. 13( a ) , a n i m m i gr a t i on j udge m a y f i nd tha ta n appl i c a nt i s c r e di bl e , buts t i l l de t e rm i ne tha tthe appl i c a ntf a i l e d t o c a rry he rbur de n of pr oof i n the abse nce of evi dence s up po rt i ng her c l ai m ). U nsurpri si ng l y, ou r c on trary 

# FI LED MA Y17 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSin te rp r e ta tio n h a s b e e n r e je c te d b y o u rs is te rc ir c u its . Se e , e . g. , So eungv. H older , 6 7 7 F .3 d 4 8 4 , 4 8 8 ( 1 s t C ir . 2 0 1 2 ) ; D i a l lo v . I NS , 23 2 F . 3d 27 9, 28 6 (2d C i r. 20 00 ); Chukw u v . A t t ’

y G e ne ral , 4 8 4 F .3 d 1 8 5 , 1 9 1

– 9 2 ( 3 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) ; Y an g v. H older , 6 6 4 F .3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 5 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) ; D o r o s h v . A s h c r o ft , 39 8 F . 3d 37 9, 38 2 (6th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ; E l- Sh e ikh v . A s h c r o ft , 3 8 8 F .3 d 6 4 3 , 6 4 7 ( 8 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ; c f . Ab o v i a n v . I

NS , 257 F . 3d 971, 973 ( 9th C i r . 2001) ( K oz i ns ki , J . , di s s e nt i ng f r om de ni a l of

r e he a r i ng e n ba nc ) ( not i ng tha tourrul e r e qui r i ng c orr obor a t i on “ ha s no s upporti n the i m m i grat i on l aw s and pu shes ou r c ou rteven further a dri ftfr om the l aw of other c ir c u its ” ) .

“ T hank ful l y, re l i ef

i s on i t s w ay , ” Ji bri l

v. G on zales , 423 F . 3d 1129, 1138 n. 1 (9th C i r. 20 05 ), thi s t i m e i n the form of N at i onal C able & T

e le c om m uni c at i ons A ss oci at i on v. B randX

Internet Serv i ces , 545 U . S . 967 ( 2005) . I n B r and X , the S up re m e C ou rthel d thatan agency’ s r ea sonabl e i nt erpret at i on of a s t atut e, pr ovi de d the i nt e rpr e t a t i on i s othe rw i s e e nt i t l e d t o de f e r e nc e , trum ps apr i or ju d ic ia l c o n s tru c tio n o f th e s a m e s ta tu te . Id . a t983. “ O nl y aj udi c i a l pr e c e de nt hol di ng tha tthe s t a tut e una m bi guous l y f or e c l os e s the a ge nc y ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on, a nd there fore cont ai ns no gap for the agency t o fi l l , di spl ac es a c on fl i ct i ng agency construct i on . ” I

d. a t982–83. T hough B r and X a d d r e s s e s th e d e f

e r e n c e o w e d to a g e n c ie s ’ s ta tu to ry in te rp r e ta tio n s , th e r e is “n o r e a s o n w h y th e s e p r in c ip le s s h o u ld no tappl y e qu al l y t o the i nt erpret at i on of a r egul at i on . ” L e v y v . Ste r l i ng H

oldi ngCo . , LLC , 5 4 4 F .3 d 4 9 3 , 5 0 2 ( 3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ; s e e a ls o I n r e L o v in , 652 F . 3d 1349, 1 3 5 4 ( F e d . C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) ( s a m e ) . W e ha ve ne ve rhe l d tha ta n i m m i gr a t i on s t a tut e orr e gul a t i on c om pe l s our rul e pr e c l udi ng i m m i gr a t i on j udge s f r om r e qui r i ng c orr obor a t i ng e vi de nc e abs e nt a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility d e te rm in a tio n . Se e , e . g. , L adha v . I NS , 215 F . 3d 889, 899 (9th C i r. 20 00 ) ( no t i ng thatou r pre ce dentdo es no teven al l ow us t o con si der w h e th e r§ 2 0 8 .1 3 is ap e rm is s ib le in te rp r e ta tio n o f th e I N A ) , ov e r r ule d i n par t on other groun ds by A bebe v. Mukasey , 55 4 F . 3d 12 03 , 12 08 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( en banc). A cc ordi ng l y, the B IA i s f re e t o p rovi de an autho ri t at i ve construct i on of 8 C . F . R . § 208. 13( a ) . I f

i tdoe s s o, w e w i l l ha ve t o r e a s s e s s the c ont i nue d va l i di ty of o u r co n trary p reced en tas req u i red b y B r and X , 5 4 5 U . S . at9 8 2

– 8 4 . B u tb ecau se the gove rnm e ntha s noty e tpoi nt e d t o a ny s uc h c ons truc t i on, ourpr e c e de nt r e m a i ns bi ndi ng— f

ornow — a nd I c onc uri n the c ourt ’ s di s pos i t i on.