### 1998 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d

S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

5-1-1998 

# B al a s ubr a m a nr im v

. IN S

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 97-3424

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1998

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1998 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a

U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t 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 v a

. e du

. 

### R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" B al as ubr a m a nr im v

. I N S " (1998). 1998 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 98.
h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w

. v i l l a no v a

. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1998/98Filed May 1, 1998

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 97-3424

ARAVINTHAN BALASUBRAMANRIM,
Petitioner

v.

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board No. A73 489 747)

Argued March 10, 1998

Before: GREENBERG, SCIRICA and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

(Filed: May 1, 1998)

VISUVANATHAN RUDRAKUMARAN, ESQUIRE (ARGUED) 875 Avenue of the Americas,
Suite 500 New York, New York 10001

Attorney for PetitionerPAULINE TERRELONGE, ESQUIRE

(ARGUED)
DAVID V. BERNAL, ESQUIRE SUSIE CHO, ESQUIRE CHRISTOPHER C. FULLER,
ESQUIRE MICHAEL P. LINDEMANN, ESQUIRE MADELINE HENLEY, ESQUIRE United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation
Civil Division P.O. Box 878, Ben Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044

Attorneys of Respondent

OPINION OF THE COURT

SCIRICA, Circuit Judge.

Aravinthan Balasubramanrim petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying h is application for asylum and withholding of deportati on. The Board, with one member dissenting, found Balasubramanrim's testimony before the immigration judge
was not credible because it was inconsistent with information he gave to Immigration and Naturalizati on Service officials at the airport upon entry into th e United States. Because this credibility finding was not su pported by substantial evidence, we will grant the petition

.

I.

Balasubramanrim, a Sri Lankan citizen of Tamil ethnicity, was born on February 19, 1969, in a prov ince in the northern part of Sri Lanka. In support of his a sylum and withholding of deportation application, he subm itted substantial documentary evidence concerning recent political and social developments in Sri Lanka. Thi s documentary evidence supports his claim that some T amils in Sri Lanka are subject to mistreatment at the han ds of both government and anti-government forces.

2Since 1987, civil unrest has disrupted life in Sri Lanka.

The conflict stems primarily from tensions between the minority Tamils and the majority Sinhalese.1 In an effort to establish an independent Tamil state in the north, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam have been in armed conflict with the government and Indian peacekeepin g forces since 1987.2 Although the Liberation Tigers have succeeded in controlling much of the Northern Provi nce and parts of the Eastern Province, not all Tamils s upport them. In fact, the Eelam People's Democratic Party, the People's Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam and the Tamil Eelam Liberation Organization all cooperate w ith the government security forces.

Since the conflict erupted, both government forces and Liberation Tiger rebels have committed human rights violations. According to a 1995 report of the State Department's Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitaria n Affairs, both sides mistreat prisoners and arrest s uspected opponents on an arbitrary basis. Young male Tamils like Balasubramanrim are most often the target of this a buse. According to the State Department, most Sri Lankan asylum claimants in the United States are Tamil mal es between the ages of 20 and 36, and they generally a llege
mistreatment at the hands of the Sri Lankan authori ties and the Liberation Tigers.

In his application for asylum, Balasubramanrim clai ms he was a victim of these abuses and that if he retu rns to Sri Lanka he will again be persecuted. Balasubraman rim claims to have been arrested, detained, and torture d on several occasions by the armed forces of the Sri La nkan government, the Indian peacekeeping forces, and the Liberation Tigers. Specifically, in his application
,

___________________________________________________ ______________

1. About 18% of Sri Lanka's population is Tamil whi le 74% is Sinhalese. The Tamils are predominantly Hindu while the Sinhal ese are predominantly Buddhist.

2. In July 1987, the Government of Sri Lanka entere d an agreement with
the Government of India under which India stationed forces in Sri Lanka through March, 1990. Although initially the Indian forces were able to maintain a low level of violence, fighting broke ou t between the Indians and the Liberation Tigers in 1988 and 1989.

3Balasubramanrim described the following events: (1) In

March 1988, he was arrested by the Indian peacekeep ing forces and taken to a camp where he was accused of being a "Tiger" and beaten; (2) in November 1989, he was again arrested (the administrative record is unclear on w ho arrested him) because he refused to join the ranks of one of the political fighting forces, was tortured for an entire day, and remained in custody for five days; (3) in March 1990, the Tigers arrested him for 10 days and accus ed him of being an informant for the Indian Peacekeeping F orces, a charge which he claims was untrue; (4) in 1991, h is brother disappeared after being arrested by the Sri Lankan army; (5) in 1993, his father was killed by Sri Lan kan air bombs; (6) in October 1993, he fled northern Sri La nka but was arrested for failing to register in the new are a; (7) also in October 1993, after accusing Balasubramanrim of being a Tiger, the Sri Lankan army arrested, detained, an d tortured him for one year and ten days; eventually, his wife bribed the army for his release; (8) in late 1994, Sri Lankan armed forces arrested him at the airport as he was trying to leave the country with his family, and he was de tained and tortured for four months and ten days.3

Shortly thereafter, Balasubramanrim left Sri Lanka by using a false Canadian passport. He went to Singapo re, then Malaysia, then London, and finally to the Unit ed States. Balasubramanrim arrived at John F. Kennedy Airport on April 6, 1995. Upon arrival, INS officer s interviewed him in English without a translator. Th e only
record we have of this interview is a document cons isting of 25 hand-printed questions and answers. We do not kn ow how the interview was conducted or how the document was prepared. The transcript reads in part:

(3) Q. When and where were you born? A. 2/19/69 Jaffna, Sri Lanka.

(7) Q. Why are you coming to the U.S. today ? A. today I am going to Toronto

___________________________________________________ ______________

3. Balasubramanrim's wife and child successfully fl ed to Canada where they were given refugee status.

4(13) Q. What was your occupation in Sri Lank a?

A. I owned a grocery market.

(14) Q. So if you owned a grocery market why are you going to Toronto? A. I go for two months to visit my fami ly and I go back to Sri Lanka. No I stay in Toronto

.

(15) Q. Why will you stay in Toronto and not go back
to Sri Lanka? A. I go to jail if I go back to Sri Lan ka - I have problems with LTT - Liberation Tigers o f Tamil and Sri Lanka government an police and military because I have business problems and my brother plots against the government.

(17) Q. What would happen if you returned to Sr i

Lanka?
A. The will kill me.

(18) Q. How did you get to the U.S. from Sri La nka? A. I left Sri Lanka one month ago - fir st I went to Singapore for 15 days then to Malaysia for 14 days - then to London for 1 day - then to here.

(22) Q. Have you or anyone in your family ev er been

arrested? A. my brother, military and police arre sted him - for being with a group of people - I ha ve never been arrested.

(25) Q. Is anything else you want to add to thi s

statement? A. I was arrested also, by LTT [Liberat ion Tige rs of Tamil Ealan], they kept me for 10 (T en) days. After I gave them money they let me go -$12,000

Sri Lanka Rubies.

(errors reproduced). Balasubramanrim signed the tra nscript on each page and also signed under a declaration wh ich
the INS officials had written: "I have had the fore going statement read to me in English and have understood and answered all the questions voluntarily, and I swear my statement is the truth." Id. at 193.

Subsequently, Balasubramanrim appeared before the

5immigration judge. Consistent with his application for

asylum and withholding of deportation, Balasubraman rim
testified about numerous instances of mistreatment at the hands of the Sri Lankan government and the Liberati on Tigers. But on August 29, 1995, the immigration jud ge found Balasubramanrim excludable,4 denied his appli cation for asylum and withholding of deportation, and orde red him deported to Sri Lanka. The immigration judge conclu ded
that Balasubramanrim had not told the truth about h is prior arrests and his fears about returning to Sri Lanka.5 The immigration judge also expressed doubts about Balasubramanrim's credibility because he did not lo ok at

___________________________________________________ ______________

4. The Immigration Judge found Balasubramanrim excl udable because he had no valid immigration visa, 8 U.S.C. SS 1182( a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (1994); was a nonimmigrant without a valid passport, 8 U.S. C. S 1182(a)(7)(B)(i)(I); and had no valid nonimmigran t visa or border crossing card, 8 U.S.C. S 1182(a)(7)(B)(i)(II). Bal asubramanrim does not appeal these findings.

5. In questioning Balasubramanrim, the immigration judge said:

Q: Sir, reading your affidavit, your affida vit question was have

you or any of your family been arrested. You sta te my brother was arrested for being with a, can't read the wo rd, but the -- what I'm getting at, the next sentence. I have never been arrested. You told the Immigration officers at the airport that you were never arrested?

A: I told them that I have a brother who is in (indiscernible) arrested. He was arrested by the Army, polic e and PLAT.

Q: Did you tell -- hello, did you tell the Immigration officers at

the airport that you were never arrested, yes or no? Yes or no, sir?

Yes

or no?

A: No.

Q: So they just made this up?

A: I told them I was not arrested in (indis cernible).

Q: Did you tell the Immigration officers th at you can't go back to Sri Lanka because you have business problems , and because of your brother's plots against the government, yes or no? Yes or no
sir?

A: If I have said anything, that means I di d not understand.6him while testifying and instead stared straight ah ead "as

though in a trance." Balasubramanrim appealed. 6

The Board conducted an independent review of Balasubramanrim's credibility and upheld the judgme nt of the immigration judge. The Board did not put any st ock in the immigration judge's reliance on Balasubramanrim 's failure to make eye contact7 but nevertheless found him not credible and on July 10, 1997 dismissed his appeal. The Board was particularly troubled by what it saw as inconsistencies between Balasubramanrim's testimony at the hearing and his airport statement. As noted, on e board
member dissented.

II.

The Board had jurisdiction under 8 C.F.R. SS 3.1(b)
, 3.1(c) and 236.7 (1997). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. S 1105a, as amended by the transitional chan ges in judicial review set forth in S 309(c) of the Illega l Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009. On August 6, 1 997, Balasubramanrim filed a timely petition for review as required by S 309(c).

Whether an asylum applicant has demonstrated a well founded fear of persecution is a factual determinat ion
reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. C hang v. INS, 119 F.3d 1055, 1060 (3d Cir. 1997). We will up hold the agency's findings of fact to the extent they ar e "supported by reasonable, substantial, and probativ e evidence on the record considered as a whole." INS v. EliasZacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992) (citing 8 U.S.C.

___________________________________________________ ______________

6. While the appeal to the Board was pending, the I NS agreed to parole Balasubramanrim to Canada, where his family resides , and Balasubramanrim withdrew his appeal. Later, accordi ng to Balasubramanrim, the INS changed its policy and wou ld not parole him to Canada. Subsequently, the Board allowed him to r einstate his appeal.

7. Specifically, the Board stated: "the Immigration Judge's perception of the applicant's `body language' at the hearing is n ot a matter on which we place any significant weight, as such behavior i s amenable to varying explanations."

7S 1105a(a)(4)). Likewise, adverse credibility deter minations

are reviewed for substantial evidence. Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 340 (9th Cir. 1994); Cordero-Trejo v. INS , 40 F.3d 482, 487 (1st Cir. 1994).

III.

A.

Under the asylum statute, 8 U.S.C. S 1158 (1994), i f the Attorney General determines that an alien is a refu gee within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. S 1101(a)(42)(A) (19 94), the Attorney General has the discretion of granting the alien asylum. A refugee is defined as:

any person who is outside any country of suc h person's nationality ... and who is unable o r unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that countr y because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persec ution on account of race, religion, nationality, memb ership in a particular social group, or political opinio n.

8 U.S.C. S 1101(a)(42)(A).8 Thus, Balasubramanrim h as the burden to show that he qualifies as a refugee becau se he was persecuted in the past or has a "well-founded f ear" of future persecution on the ground of, inter alia, po litical opinion, which is the basis of his appeal.

B.

Where the immigration judge makes a credibility determination, the Board can independently assess t hat

___________________________________________________ ______________

8. In addition, Balasubramanrim applied for withhol ding of deportation. Section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality A ct, 8 U.S.C. S 1253(h) (1994), requires withholding of deportation of an a lien "if the Attorney
General determines that such alien's life or freedo m would be threatened in such country on account of race, religion, natio nality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion." E ligibility for withholding of deportation under section 243(h) of the INA invo lves a stricter standard ("clear probability") than eligibility for asylum. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987).

8determination and make de novo findings on credibil ity.

See Damaize-Job v. INS, 787 F.2d 1332, 1338 (9th Ci r. 1986) ("The Board has the power to review the recor d de novo and make its own findings of fact, including c redibility determinations."). In this case, the Board conducte d such
an assessment and found Balasubramanrim not credibl e. As noted, we review the Board's adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. Hartooni, 2 1 F.3d at 340. "The Board's findings ... must ... be set asid e when the record before a Court of Appeals clearly precludes the Board's decision from being justified by a fair est imate of the worth of the testimony of witnesses or its info rmed judgment on matters within its special competence o r both." Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 , 490 (1951). Though we defer to reasonable inferences dr awn by the Board from conflicting evidence, "deference is not due where findings and conclusions are based on inferen ces or presumptions that are not reasonably grounded in th e record, viewed as a whole." Cordero-Trejo, 40 F.3d at 487 (citations omitted).

The Board should give specific reasons for its
determination that a witness is not credible. Mosa v. Rogers, 89 F.3d 601, 604 (9th Cir. 1996). We must "evaluate those reasons to determine whether they a re valid grounds upon which to base a finding that the appli cant is not credible." Id. (citations omitted). The reasons must bear a legitimate nexus to the finding. Id. (citations o mitted).

In concluding that Balasubramanrim was not credible
, the Board focused on perceived inconsistencies betw een information Balasubramanrim gave to INS officers at the airport and his testimony before the immigration ju dge. Although there are some inconsistencies, we do not believe that the airport statement in this case provides a valid ground upon which the Board could base its finding that
Balasubramanrim was not credible.

The INS officers interrogated Balasubramanrim at th e airport. As noted, the only record we have of this interview is a document consisting of 25 hand-printed questio ns and

answers.

The document includes the following:

9(22) Q: Have you or anyone in your family be en

arrested? A: My brother, military and police arre sted him-- for being with a group of people--I hav e never been arrested.

* * *

(25) Q: Is there anything else you want to a dd to this

statement? A: I was arrested also, by LTT, they ke pt me for 10 (ten) days. After I gave them money they let me go--$12,000 Sri Lanka Rubies.

After comparing this statement to the testimony Balasubramanrim gave before the immigration judge, the Board stated: "The applicant's airport statement is not consistent with his story of serious mistreatment b y the Sri Lankan military over a prolonged period." The Board questioned why, if Balasubramanrim had actually bee n mistreated on multiple occasions, he did not relate all these incidents to the INS officers at the airport.

Yet an examination of the record reveals that Balasubramanrim's airport interview may not represe nt an accurate account of the persecution he suffered in Sri Lanka. If this is so, then, under the fact of this case, the Board placed undue reliance on the airport intervie w.

The following factors are relevant. First, the hand written record of the airport interview in this case may no t be
reliable. We do not know how the interview was cond ucted or how the document was prepared. We do not know whether the questions and answers were recorded verbatim, summarized, or paraphrased. We cannot tel l from
the document the extent to which Balasubramanrim ha d difficulty comprehending the questions, whether que stions had to be repeated, or when and how sign language w as used. Nor does the document reveal whether Balasubramanrim's responses actually correspond to those
recorded or whether the examiner recorded some dist illed or summary version based on his best estimation of the

response.

Second, the airport statement is not an application for asylum. The questions posed were not designed to el icit the

10details of an asylum claim, and it appears the airp ort

examiner in this case had no interest in developing the details of a potential asylum claim. For example, a t one point, the following exchange took place:

(17) Q. What would happen if you returned to Sri

Lanka? A. The (sic) will kill me.

But remarkably there was no follow up question. The examiner did not inquire who would kill Balasubrama nrim or why. The next question was: "How did you get to the U.S. from Sri Lanka?" In addition, the airport stat ement itself contains inconsistent responses that the INS examiner did not clarify. For example, the examiner asked Balasubramanrim if he had ever been arrested, and, according to the handwritten document, he said that he hadn't. Later, in response to another question,
Balasubramanrim told the INS officers: "I was also arrested by the LTT, they kept me for 10 days, after I gave them money, they let me go." But this apparent inconsist ency was never explored. Nor was Balasubramanrim's use o f the word "also", which might imply there was more than one arrest.9

Third, an arriving alien who has suffered abuse dur ing interrogation sessions by government officials in h is home country may be reluctant to reveal such information during the first meeting with government officials in this country. Similarly, when the arriving alien is not proficien t in English and no translator is provided, the airport interview may not elicit all the events which are central to an asylum
claim.

Our recent case, Marincas v. Lewis, 92 F.3d 195 (3d Cir. 1996), is instructive. In Marincas, we found the as ylum

___________________________________________________ ______________

9. Unfortunately, Balasubramanrim's attempt to expl ain the lack of arrest information in the airport statement is mark ed "indiscernible" in the asylum hearing transcript. When the immigration judge questioned Balasubramanrim concerning his statement that he ha d never been
arrested or detained and that he was in trouble bec ause of his brother's activities, he responded: "I told them that I was n ot arrested in (indiscernible)." We are left guessing as to this c ritical aspect of the credibility determination in this case.

11procedure afforded stowaways inadequate because the re

was no translator and no mechanism to ensure accura te recording of their statements to assure a fair revi ew process. Id. at 204. Balasubramanrim, unlike the stowaways in Marincas, received a full adversarial hearing before an immigration judge and had the assistance of an attorney at that hearing. But in carefully scrutini zing Balasubramanrim's initial statements at the airport , the Board treated that interview like an initial applic ation for asylum. Furthermore, the airport statement procedur e here
suffers from some of the same defects as did the st owaway proceedings invalidated in Marincas. Balasubramanri m did not have a translator at the airport interview. Nor do we have any confidence that the interview was accurate ly recorded. At least in Marincas the stowaways were i nformed that they were being afforded the opportunity to pr esent their claim for asylum and were questioned specific ally as to their past persecution or well-founded fear of f uture persecution. No such notice was provided in this ca se.

Finally, we are not confident the Board made an acc urate assessment of Balasubramanrim's English skills. In reaching its credibility determination, the Board r elied heavily on its conclusion that Balasubramanrim knew a "fair amount of English" at the time of the airport interview. Yet looking at the record, it is difficult to see t he basis for
this conclusion.

Balasubramanrim maintains that he knew very little English at the time of the airport interview and th at this accounts in large part for his failure to tell the INS officers
about his mistreatment in Sri Lanka. When the immigration judge asked Balasubramanrim what he sai d when questioned at the airport, Balasubramanrim responded, "I don't understand what they ask me." W hen asked whether he understood the airport statement t hat he signed and whether an oath was administered before he signed it, Balasubramanrim replied: "I don't unders tand English, so I don't know." Finally, when the immigr ation judge asked him about the airport statement, Balasubramanrim replied: "I don't understand that m uch of English. So what I do understand, I said yes. Whate ver I didn't understand, I said no. But most of the time it was

12like sign language. So they were asking me in sign, so I was

signing back."

The Board dismissed this argument, noting that Balasubramanrim was able to convey a great deal of
accurate information. The Board concluded:

[A]s the applicant was able to communicate [information about dates and places he had b een] accurately, and was able to communicate his brother's detention by the LIBERATION TIGERS of 10 day s, we do not find that the immigration judge erred in concluding that the applicant should also ha ve been able to communicate his other, more signific ant, detentions he claimed at the hearing; i.e. h is detention for 1 year and 10 days, and another 4 months by the
Sri Lankan Armed Forces.

The Board also found that at his hearing, Balasubramanrim on several occasions answered quest ions posed to him in English without waiting for the tra nslation. Balasubramanrim maintains that during his four mont hs of detention he was able to improve his English langua ge skills through conversation with English-speaking

cellmates.

The Board made this finding without any support in the record that Balasubramanrim knew English prior to h is arrival in the United States. We agree with the dis senting board member who criticized "the majority's linguis tic analysis" and concluded: "the majority's estimation of the applicant's proficiency in English is based on thei r observation that the applicant responded in English to some questions at the immigration hearing. An exami nation of the transcript reveals that such occasions were so few, so incidental, and involved such elemental English tha t they provide an insufficient basis for evaluating the ap plicant's level of English proficiency."

Moreover, we note that the information Balasubraman rim indicates was accurately recorded at the airport in terview consists of fairly straightforward questions, invol ving one
word or short answers that would have been relative ly easy to understand or communicate. For example, he gave his name, other names he may have used, when and where he

13was born, what country he was a citizen of, etc. As the

dissenting board member noted, "These questions inv olved common words and called for fairly direct answers. It is reasonable that the applicant would know numbers, a nd dates, and days and not be able to express more complicated situations such as the reasons he feare d persecution or his various experiences of torture a nd
detention."

That there were some inconsistencies between the ai rport statement and Balasubramanrim's testimony before th e immigration judge is not sufficient, standing alone , to support the Board's finding that Balasubramanrim wa s not credible. See Aguilera-Cota v. INS, 914 F.2d 1375, 1382 (9th Cir. 1990) (finding that inconsistencies betwe en an applicant's written asylum application and his test imony at the asylum hearing are not enough, standing alone, to serve as a basis for finding a lack of credibility) . We find that the Board's credibility determination was not reasonable because the airport interview alone in t his case does not serve as a "valid ground[ ] upon which to base a finding that an asylum applicant is not credible." Id. (citations omitted).

C.

Balasubramanrim applied for asylum and withholding of deportation. As noted, under 8 U.S.C. S 1158, if th e Attorney General determines that an alien is a refu gee within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. S 1101(a)(42)(A), th en the Attorney General has the discretion to grant the al ien asylum. A refugee is eligible for asylum if he was persecuted in the past or has a "well-founded fear" of future persecution on the ground of, inter alia, political opinion, which is the basis of the Balasubramanrim's appeal. 10 Id. In

___________________________________________________ ______________

10. The persecution may be on account of a politica l opinion the applicant actually holds or on account of one the f oreign government has imputed to him. Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489 (9th Cir. 1997). See also Cruz-Diaz v. INS, 86 F.3d 330, 332 (4th Cir. 1 996) (rejecting applicant's asylum claim because "the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Cruz-Diaz will be subjected to pers ecution or other harm based on actual or imputed political opinion"); Sin gh v. Ilchert, 63 F.3d

14addition, 8 U.S.C. S 1253(h) requires withholding o f

deportation of an alien "if the Attorney General de termines
that such alien's life would be threatened on accou nt of ... political opinion." Eligibility for withholding of deportation involves a stricter standard ("clear probability") than eligibility for asylum. See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 430-31 (1987). The well-founded fear standard has a subjective and an objective component. Id. at 430-3 1. The alien must show that "he has a subjective fear of persecution that is supported by objective evidence that persecution is a reasonable possibility." Chang, 11 9 F.3d at 1066. When documentary evidence is lacking, as in t he instant case, the applicant's credible, persuasive, and specific testimony may suffice. Aguilera-Cota v. IN S, 914 F.2d 1375, 1378 (9th Cir. 1990).

Because the Board found Balasubramanrim not credibl e, it rejected his application for asylum and withhold ing of deportation without conducting further analysis of his claim. "In the absence of substantial evidence supp orting a finding of adverse credibility, the BIA is required explicitly to consider a petitioner's claims for asylum and wi thholding of deportation." Mosa, 89 F.3d at 605 (citations om itted). We will grant the petition and remand to the Board, with leave to further remand to the immigration judge, f or a determination of Balasubramanrim's claims for asylu m and withholding of deportation without reliance on the adverse credibility finding. In reaching this conclusion, w e do not purport to comment on the credibility of the assert ions in Balasubramanrim's petition. We hold only that, beca use of ambiguities in the airport statement and the circum stances under which it was made, that statement does not pr ovide

___________________________________________________ ______________

1501, 1509 (9th Cir. 1995) (relying on evidence tha t the applicant was tortured because he was suspected of being a Sikh s eparatist); Ravindran v. INS, 976 F.2d 754, 760 (1st Cir. 1992) (citation omitted) ("An imputed political opinion, whether correctly o r incorrectly attributed, may constitute a reason for political p ersecution within the meaning of the Act."); Rajaratnam v. Moyer, 832 F. Supp. 1219, 1223 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (finding eligibility for asylum ba sed on evidence that applicant was persecuted because the authorities su spected him of being a member of the Liberation Tigers).

15sufficient evidence to support the adverse credibil ity

determinations upon which the immigration judge and BIA denied the petition.

IV.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that substan tial evidence did not support the Board's findings. Acco rdingly, we will grant the petition and remand for proceedin gs consistent with this opinion.

A True Copy:

Teste:

Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit

16