N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KUB IR M AN GUR

UNG, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70726 Age n c y No. A089-703-569 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 Fe brua

ry 12, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TASHIM A a

nd W . FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s a n d B ASTIAN, ** Distric t Judge . Kubir M an Gurung e n t e re d the Unite d Stat e s on April 27, 2007, with a uthoriz ation to re m a in in theUnite d State s until July 1, 2007. Gurung ove

rsta y e d his visa , a nd on Ja nua ry 6, 2009, file d a

n a ffirm a tive a

pplic a tion for a sy lum

and withholding of rem o v a l. The IJ de nie d Gurung’ s a pplic a tion, and the B IA a ffirm e d.



# FIL ED MAR 11 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Sta nle y Alle n B a s tia

n, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.W e la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the de nia l of Gurung’ s a sy lum a pplic a tion, but re m and the de nia l of withholding of re m ova l for furthe r proc e e dings. To qua lify

a s an a p plic ant for a sy lum , a

n a lie n m ust e ithe r de m onstra

te by c le ar an d c onvinc ing e vide nc e that he file d his a pplic a tion within one

y e ar of the date of his a

rriva l in the Unite d State s, or sa t isfy the Attorne y

Ge ne ra l tha

t

“ c h ange d c irc um sta

nc e s” m a te ria lly

a ffe c t his e ligibility

for a sy lum

or

“ e x tra ordina

ry c i rc um sta

nc e s” re late d to his de la

y in filing. 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(2)(B ) an d

(D); se e 8 C . F.R . § 1208.4(a)(2)-(4). Gurung c onc e d e s tha t he e nte re d the Unite d State s in April 2007 a nd did not a

p ply for a s y lum

until Ja nua ry 2009— roughly e ight m onths a fte r the one -y e ar filing de a dline . The distric t c ourt subse q ue ntly c o nc lude d tha

t Gurung qua lifie d for ne ithe r the e xtra ordina ry nor c ha nge d c irc um s ta

nc e s e xc e ption. The Im m igration a

nd Na tiona lity Ac t provide s tha t “ [n] o c ourt sha ll ha

ve jurisdic tion to re v ie w a

ny de te rm ination” c onc e rning theone -y e ar filing de a dline for a s y lum . 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(3). Sinc e 2005, a c ourt m ay

re vie wtim e line ss de te rm i nations involving c onstitutiona l c la i m s or que stions of la w, 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a )(2)(D), inc luding theB oa rd’ s de te rm i nation tha

t a n a lie n’ s fa ilure did not qua lify for an e xc e ption for e x tra ordina ry or c ha nge d c irc um s ta

nc e s whe re the unde rly ing fa c t s a

re not in dispute . Se e Husy e v v . Muk ase y , 528 F.3d 1172, 1178 -2-(9th C ir. 2008); Ramadan v . Gonzale s , 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th C ir. 2007). B e c a use the unde rly ing fa c ts in this c a se are in dispute , we la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the one -y e ar-de a d line a sy lum de c ision. The IJ a lso de te rm ine d tha t Gurung la c k e d

c re dibility , a

nd on tha t ba sis de nie d withholding of re

m ova l. The B IA a ffirm e d the IJ’ s c re dibility de te rm ination ba se d on a

finding tha

t Gurung’ s te stim ony

wa s c o ntra dic tory , va gue , a nd la c ke d the re quisite c orroboration. The IJ’ s c o nc lusions re ga rding Gurung’ s c ontra dic tory and va gue te s tim ony

fa ile d , in our vie w, to m e e t the substa ntia l e v ide nc e sta

nda rd. Ge ne ra lly , re

j e c ting only

som e of the IJ’ s re a sons for a n a dve rse c re dibility finding would not underm ine the finding itse lf. Se e W ang v . IN S . , 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ [W ] he the r we have re j e c te d som e of the IJ's grounds for a n a dve rse c re dibility

finding is irre le va

nt.” ) In this c a se , howe ve r, the only re m a ining ground is Gurung’ s a lle ge d fa ilure to providec o rroborative e vide n c e . Thre e c a se s de c ide d a fte r the IJ a nd B IA issue d

the ir opinions a

re a pplic a ble he re : Re n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079 (9th C ir. 2011); Ai J un Zhi v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1088 (9th C ir. 2014); a

nd Lai v . Holde r , 773 F.3d 966 (9th C i r. 2014). Unde r Re n , an othe rwise c re d ible a

pplic an t m ust be provide d with “ notic e and a n opportunity to e i the r produc e [c e rta in c orroborative ] e vide nc e or e xpla in why it is una v a ila ble be fore [the IJ rule s] tha

t the a pplic ant ha s fa ile d in his obliga tion to provide -3-c orroborative e vide n c e and the re fore fa ile d to m e e t his burde n of proof.” 648 F.3d

a t 1090. Zhi and Laie xte nde d Re n ’ s a na ly sis to c a se s, like this one , in whic h “ the IJ found the pe titione r not c re dible ; the IJ re lie d on the la c k of c orroborat ion a s pa rt of tha t ‘ o ve ra ll c re dibility

de te rm ination’ ; a

nd, on re vie w, we re

je c te d e a c h of the IJ’ s othe r re a sons—

be side s la c k of c o rroboration— for the a dve rse c re dibility finding.” Lai , 773 F.3d a

t 976 (c ita

tion om itte d). W e find tha

t Gurung’ s te stim o ny

wa s ne ithe r c o ntra d i c tory nor insuffic ie ntly va gue . He a lso la c ke d notic e tha t the IJ would find his te stim ony le s s tha n c re dible , and tha t, for this re a son, c orroborative e vide nc e would be c ritic a l to the he r c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion. W e the re fore re m a n d Gurung’ s c a se to provide Gurung an opportunity to provide the c orroborat ing e vide n c e the IJ be lie ve s is re quire d.

DE NIE D IN PART a

n d RE M ANDE D .

-4-