Opinion ID: 221000
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Remand for Decision Based on All Evidence Properly Before the IJ, Including Petitioner's Testimony

Text: Because the IJ did not understand that he could consider credible testimony by petitioner, he evidently did not, even implicitly, make a decision regarding petitioner's credibility. Failure of the IJ and BIA to evaluate the credibility of a petitioner's testimony in a case like this is a fundamental flaw, which deprives a petitioner of his right to have his testimony considered and precludes effective review. Cf. Lopez-Umanzor, 405 F.3d at 1053-54, 1059 (Had the IJ believed Petitioner's explanation, then she would have met the statutory criteria for relief.). If petitioner's denial is not credible, then circumstantial evidence may establish the requisite reason to believe that he knew he was transporting drugs. See Alarcon-Serrano, 220 F.3d at 1120 (finding substantial evidence of reason to believe based on circumstantial evidence where [b]oth the BIA and the IJ disbelieved [petitioner's] testimony claiming lack of knowledge). Here, however, it appears the IJ did not evaluate the credibility of petitioner's denial of knowledge because the IJ incorrectly concluded that the reason to believe is the officer's belief at the time the alien is encountered at the port of entry and that petitioner's later denial of knowledge was, therefore, irrelevant. The BIA also appears to have made no credibility determination of its own and may have instead concluded, erroneously, that the IJ had already made an implicit adverse credibility determination. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to remand for further proceedings to evaluate the credibility of petitioner's testimony that he did not know he was transporting marijuana, and the effect of that determination on the question of whether the IJ or BIA had reason to believe in light of all the evidence placed before the IJ during the course of these proceedings. See Lopez-Umanzor, 405 F.3d at 1059; Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 343 (9th Cir.1994) (remanding for a credibility determination where the BIA relied on the IJ's credibility determination when, in fact, the IJ did not make such a credibility finding); see also Kho v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 50, 56 (1st Cir.2007) (If, in the absence of a credibility finding by the IJ, a reviewing court determines that such a finding is necessary for effective review of the case, it may remand to the agency for further factfinding.). We remand for such proceedings and do not decide the substantial evidence question because it is premature to do so. PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED with instructions.