Court Opinion

ID: 9501776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 19:42:35.86527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:47.325809
License: Public Domain

BYBEE, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in full in the disposition, but write separately to emphasize my concern with the BIA’s failure to reconcile its decision with the fact that the petitioners’ parents were previously granted asylum based on the same underlying events. This is particularly concerning given that the rejection of the petitioners’ withholding of removal claim was predicated on an adverse credibility finding. This case is subject to pre-REAL ID Act law regarding the valid bases for an adverse credibility determination, meaning that an adverse credibility determination can only be validly supported by inconsistencies if those inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim. Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 & n. 7 (9th Cir.2010). It would seem that the heart of petitioners’ claim has much in common with the heart of the claim on which petitioners’ parents were already granted asylum. Rejection of petitioners’ withholding of removal claim may very well be reconcilable with the previous *735grant of asylum to petitioners’ parents, but the BIA should at least make that reconciliation explicit on remand.