N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
PAM PHYLS B ATILA-B ATILA,

Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-71823 Age n c y No. A205-273-088
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 Subm itte d

June 11, 2018 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : D.W . NELSON a nd WATFORD, C i rc uit Judge s, a nd PREGER SON, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED J UN 15 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble De an D. Pre ge rson, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e n tra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion.Pa m

phy l s B a tila -B a tila

(“ B atila -B a tila ” or “ Pe titione r” ), a native and c itiz e n of the De m oc ra tic R e public of C ongo (“ DR C ” ), a ppe a ls the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ s (“ B IA” ) de c ision upholding the Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his
c la im s for a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252, a nd we de ny in par t and g r ant in par t the pe tition. 1. “ A pe titione r m ay

. . . m ove to [re m a

n d] for the purpose of subm itting a
ne w a pplic a tion for re lie f, provide d . . . the e vide n c e sought to be offe re d is [1]
m a te ria l and [2] wa s not a v a ila ble and c ould not ha

ve be e n pre se nte d at the form e r he aring.” Rome ro-Ruiz v
. Muk ase y , 538 F.3d 1057, 1063–64 (9th C ir. 2008) (c iting 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(1)). 1 Evide nc e is m a te ria l if it will a id a pe titione r in

“ e s ta b lish[ing] [a ] prim a

fa c ie [c a se ] for re lie f,” an d it “ a ddre sse [s] . . . the ke y proble m s ide ntifie d by the [im m igration judge ] in its initia l orde r de ny ing re lie f.” Bhasin v . Gonzale

s , 423 F.3d 977, 987 (9th C ir. 2005). Evidenc e is una va ila ble if

“ it c onc e rn[s] e ve nts tha

t did not oc c ur until a fte r the IJ he aring,” Goe l v

. Gonzale s , 490 F.3d 735, 738 (9th C ir. 2007) (c ita t ion om itte d), or wa s othe rwise

1 Se c tion 1003.2(c )(1) gove rns m otions to re ope n. “ The form a l re quire m e nts of a m otion to re m and a

n d a m o tion to re ope n

are the sa m e .” Rome ro-Ruiz , 538 F.3d at 1063 (c ita

tion omitte d). 2not “ re a sona bly av a ila ble to the pe titione r” at

the tim e of the he aring, Oy e niran v
. Holde r , 672 F.3d 800, 808 (9th C ir. 2012) (c ita tions omitte d).

“ [The C ourt] re vie w[s] the B IA’ s de nia l of a m otion to re m and for a

buse of disc re tion,” R ome ro-Ruiz , 538 F.3d a t 1062, a n d will only

“ re ve rse . . . if [the B IA’ s de c ision] is a

rbitra ry , irrationa l , or c ontra

ry to la w,” S ingh v . I.N

.S. , 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th C ir. 2002) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d). In support of his m

o t ion to re m and, B a tila -B a tila subm itte d a

le tte r from

his
m othe r, c e rtifie d tra

nsla t ions of va

rious doc um e nts from

the DR C ’ s M inistry

of Justic e , a le tte r from

his doc tor in the DR C , a

n e xpe rt c ountry c onditions sta te m e nt,
and a n e xpe rt m e dic a l re port e v a luating his injurie s . Eve n if the e vide nc e proffe re d is m a te ria l to B a tila -B a tila ’ s c la i m s for re lie f,
e a c h pie c e “ c onc e rns e v e nts tha t a lle ge dly

oc c urre d in [the DR C ] we ll be fore his IJ he aring.” Goe l , 490 F.3d a t 738; se e also Bhasin , 423 F.3d a t 987 (finding proffe re d te stim ony wa s una va ila ble be c a use it “ c onc e rn[e d] e ve n ts tha t ha ppe ne d afte r the ‘ form e r he a

ring’ be fore the IJ” ). B e c a use “ the ne w inform a tion . . . wa s
ava ila ble an d c a

pa ble of disc o ve ry

[be fore the ] he aring,” the B IA did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny i ng Pe t itione r’ s m otion to re m and. Guzman v . I.N .S. , 318 F.3d 911, 913 (9th C ir. 2003).

32. “ In a post-R EAL ID Ac t c a se [suc h a s this] , a n IJ m aking a

c re dibility finding c onside rs the tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s, a nd a ll re le va

nt fa c tors,” inc l uding “ the c onsiste n c y be twe e n the a pplic ant’ s or witne ss’ s writte n and ora l sta te m e nts . . . , the

inte rna l c onsiste nc y

of e a c h suc h sta

te m e nt, the c o nsiste nc y

of
suc h sta te m e nts with other e vide nc e [in the ] re c o rd . . . , a nd a ny ina c c ura c ie s or fa lse hoods in suc h sta

te m e nts, without re ga

rd to whe the r a

n inc onsiste nc y , ina c c ura c y , or fa lse h o od goe s to the he art of the a pplic ant’ s c la i m .” Lai v . Holde r , 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th C ir. 2014) (c iting 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii)) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d bra c ke ts om itte d ). “ W e re vie w . . . a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nations[] for substa ntia l e vide n c e ” and “ will only ove rturn the IJ’ s
c onc lusion whe n the e vide nc e c om pe ls a c ontra ry re s ult.” Id. (e m

pha sis a dde d) (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). “ W he re , a s he re , the B IA c ite s [ M atte r of Burbano , 20 I. & N. De c . 872 (B IA 1994), a dopts theIJ’ s findings, a nd] provide s its own re vie w of the e vide nc e and la w , we re vie w both the IJ’ s an d the B IA’ s de c isions.” Ali v . Holde r , 637 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tion
om i tte d). He re , the IJ a

nd B IA ba se d the ir a dve rse c re dibility de t e rm i nations on thre e diffe re nt grounds: (1) tha t during his initia

l inte rvie w with the im

m i gra tion
e nforc e m e nt a g e nt, Pe titione r only e xpre sse d a fe ar of his stepfa the r an d not the 4DR C gove rnm e nt, a nd tha t in his subse que nt a sy lum a pplic a tions, hene ve r
m e ntione d a

fe ar of his stepfa the r; (2) tha t c o n trary to his c la im s tha t the DR C gove rnm e nt pe rse c ute d him ba s e d on his politic a l vie ws, his dispute with his frie nd B ay inga , whose fa the r wa s a ge ne ra l in the C ongole s e gove rnm e n t, a ppe are d to be
ove r a wom an; a

nd (3) tha t the m e dic a l doc um e nts Pe titione r provide d a ppe are d to have be e n a lte re d to indic a te he wa s tre a te d in 2011 (in a c c orda nc e with his te stim ony ), whe n the y

we re initia lly

date d 2012. As to the first ground, “ [m ] a te ria l [om issions] in the a p plic ant’ s a c c o unt of pe rse c ution a

re suffic ie nt to support a

n a dve rse c re d ibility finding.” Zamanov v . Holde r , 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th C ir. 2011) (c ita tion omitte d). W ith re s pe c t to the othe r two inc onsiste nc ie s, B a tila -B atila c ould not provide a satisfa c tory
e xpla nation of the m . B e c a

use substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the IJ a n d B IA’ s
a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ions, a

nd the re c ord doe s not “ c om pe l[] a c ontra ry
re sult,” we de ny

the pe tition on this ground. Lai , 773 F.3d a t 970 (c i tations a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d). 3. In the a

bse nc e of c re d ible te stim ony re ga rding pa st pe rse c ution on
a c c ount of his politic a l opinion (or a ny othe r prote c te d

ground), B a tila -B a tila ’ s
a sy lum and withholding of re m ova l c l a im s fa il. Se e Farah v . Ashc r oft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). 54. W ith re spe c t to his C A T c la im , ne i the r the B IA nor the IJ c onside re d the

c ountry c onditions e vide nc e he subm itte d . Inste a d, the IJ a nd B IA ba se d the ir de nia l of Pe titione r’ s C AT c la im on the a dve rse c re dibility finding. W e do not pe rm it “ ‘ a

ne gative c re dibility

de te rm ination in the

a sy lum c onte xt to wa sh ove r the t orture c l a im ’ . . . a s ‘ prope r a tte ntion to re le va nt c ountry c onditions m

ight le nd
c re d e nc e to [a

pe titione r’ s] a sse rtions of torture and c a use the B IA to vie w the m in
a diffe re nt light.’ ” Taha v

. Ashc roft , 389 F.3d 800, 802 (9th C i r. 2004) (quoting K amalthas v . IN

S , 251 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th C ir. 2001)). The re fore , we grant the pe tition a s to the C AT c la im and re m and for the B IA to re c onside r that c la i m in light of the

c ountry c onditions e vide nc e subm itte d
. Se e Aguilar-Ramos v. Holde r , 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ B e c a u se the B IA fa ile d to c onside r the C ountry R e port a

t a l l, the prope r c ourse of a c tion is to re m and with instruc tions that the B IA re c onside r [pe titione r’ s] C AT c la i m in light of the

C ountry R e port.” ); Fark as v . Se ssions , 691 F. App’ x 412, 415 (9th C ir. 2017) (c i tation omitte d) (sam e ). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; G RANT E D in par t. Ea c h pa rty sha ll be a r the ir own c osts.

6