Court Opinion

ID: 9891769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 17:00:46.700977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:24.145432
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       OCT 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIE ANGE NICOLE SALOMON,                      No. 21-1405
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A208-594-550
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                           Submitted October 10, 2023**

Before:      S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Marie Ange Nicole Salomon, a native and citizen of Haiti, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her

motion to terminate proceedings and dismissing her appeal from an immigration

judge’s (“IJ’s”) decision denying her applications for asylum, withholding of

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility

determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,

1039‑40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a

motion to terminate. Dominguez v. Barr, 975 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2020). We

grant in part and deny in part the petition for review, and remand.

      The BIA found no clear error in two factual findings the IJ relied on in

support of an adverse credibility determination. Substantial evidence does not

support these findings. Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s finding

that Salomon’s testimony regarding who reported her uncle’s murder to police was

inconsistent with the police report, because she was not provided a reasonable

opportunity to explain. See Chen v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 611, 618 (9th Cir. 2004)

(reversing negative credibility finding because, among other things, applicant was

denied a reasonable opportunity to explain a perceived inconsistency). Substantial

evidence also does not support the agency’s reliance on an internal inconsistency

in the police report. See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017)

(“When an inconsistency is cited as a factor supporting an adverse credibility

determination, that inconsistency should not be a mere trivial error such as a

misspelling, and the petitioner’s explanation for the inconsistency, if any, should

                                        2                                   21-1405
be considered in weighing credibility.” (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted)). Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Salomon’s asylum,

withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the agency for further proceedings

consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)

(per curiam).

      Salomon’s contention that the IJ lacked jurisdiction over her proceedings is

foreclosed by United States v. Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187, 1188, 1193 (9th

Cir. 2022) (en banc) (lack of hearing information in notice to appear does not

deprive immigration court of subject matter jurisdiction, and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a)

is satisfied when later notice provides hearing information).

      Each party must bear its own costs for this petition for review.

      The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED in part; DENIED in part;

REMANDED.

                                        3                                  21-1405