Court Opinion

ID: 9479427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:18:12.909101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:02.107014
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I concur in the opinion of the majority except that portion of part IV where the majority makes factual determinations regarding Maldonado’s credibility — determinations inconsistent with the record, law, and logic. According to the majority, because the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) based its decision on legal issues and thus did not consider Maldonado’s credibility, we must presume his story credible. Maj. op. at 792. From this portion of the majority opinion, I dissent.
We have already assigned credibility determinations to the fact finder—and well we should. Medsker v. Bonebrake, 108 U.S. 66, 72-73, 2 S.Ct. 351, 354, 27 L.Ed. 654 (1883) (Medsker); Canjura-Flores v. INS, 784 F.2d 885, 888 (9th Cir.1985) (Canjura-Flores). We cannot determine from the record if an individual is telling the truth. A believable story in print may be unbelievable when witnessed in person. Medsker, 108 U.S. at 72, 2 S.Ct. at 354 (“The master, who was present and heard Mrs. Medsker testify, and could see her manner ... is therefore better able to determine the weight due to her testimo-ny_”); Canjura-Flores, 784 F.2d at 888 (“The Immigration Judge is in the best position to make credibility findings because he views the witness as the testimony is given.”). Therefore, when the immigration judge (IJ) makes credibility findings, we defer to those findings. Vilorio-Lopez v. INS, 852 F.2d 1137, 1141 (9th Cir.1988) (Vilorio-Lopez); Canjura-Flores, 784 F.2d at 888. In addition, the Board is experienced enough and close enough to the initial process that we defer to its findings. See Cardoza-Fonseca v. INS, 767 F.2d 1448, 1455 (9th Cir.1985).
Despite our usual dependency on the fact finder for credibility determinations, the *794majority decides to short-circuit this necessary step and arrogate this responsibility to itself. Why? As the majority sees it, the government waives this determination because the IJ and Board were silent. In its own words, the Board’s “refusal to consider credibility leads to the presumption that it found the petitioner credible.” Maj. op. at 792. This defies logic. The Board did not “refus[e] to consider credibility.” Both the IJ and Board did not need to make credibility determinations because their decisions rested on purely legal issues. The majority robs the government of the fact finder’s credibility determination because the IJ and Board neglected to make findings wholly unnecessary to their decisions. We would never hold such with a district court decision. For example, we do not require a district court, when it rules as a matter of law, to make needless alternative findings of fact — as the majority now requires of the Board. Nor do we award relief when we reverse a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; rather we remand. Here the Board in essence ruled that Maldonado failed to state a claim. The obvious result should be a remand to make factual findings, including credibility determinations, under the law as pronounced.
The authority on which the majority relies does not command its departure from reason. In Damaize-Job v. INS, 787 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir.1985) (Damaize-Job), the IJ explicitly found the petitioner not to be credible. Our court, however, rejected the IJ’s credibility determination. Id. at 1337-38. We then observed that the Board was silent on the issue of credibility, and explained that “[w]hile it is conceivable that the BIA shared the IJ’s concerns regarding Damaize’s credibility, any reliance on the IJ’s stated reasons would be inappropriate and unsupported by substantial evidence.” Id. at 1338 n. 6. That is not our case. Neither the IJ nor the Board made credibility determinations which we rejected. Indeed, they did not need to do so because they were deciding the case on legal issues. In Damaize-Job, flawed credibility findings formed the basis of the IJ and, the opinion suggests, the Board’s decisions; in our case, credibility findings formed no basis in the IJ and Board’s decisions. The IJ and Board in Damaize-Job did not ground their decisions on issues of law. Damaize-Job is therefore distinguishable.
The part of Damaize-Job on which the majority relies cites Canjura-Flores, 784 F.2d at 889. Damaize-Job, 787 F.2d at 1338. Canjura-Flores explains the proper rule to be applied in this case. There we said:
Our decision is not a presumption in favor of testimony given by aliens petitioning for withholding or asylum. The question of credibility remains with the Immigration Judge in the first instance, and with the Board as outlined in our previous decisions. We will continue to remand to the Board for credibility findings when we reverse a decision in which the Board has avoided the credibility issue by holding that a petitioner has failed to establish either a well-founded fear of persecution or a clear probability of persecution even if his testimony is assumed to be credible, or when the basis of the Board’s decision cannot be discerned from the record. When the decisions of the Immigration Judge and the Board are silent on the question of credibility, however, we will presume that they found the petitioner credible.
Canjura-Flores, 784 F.2d at 889 (citations omitted) (footnote omitted). Damaize-Job and the majority seized on the last sentence. It is the first part that applies here. The Board “avoided the credibility issue” by ruling as a matter of law that Maldonado did not qualify for withholding of deportation. They were wrong. Accordingly, we should remand for credibility determinations. Id.; see also Garcia-Ramos v. INS, 775 F.2d 1370, 1374-75 (9th Cir.1985); Argueta v. INS, 759 F.2d 1395, 1397-98 (9th Cir.1985). This is not a game where an incorrect understanding of the law by the fact finder results in automatic granting of relief. Such a rule would require inefficient use of limited resources. The Board would have to make credibility determinations in every case regardless of *801whether they are needed. This is no small burden. When the IJ and Board pass on a petitioner’s credibility, they must offer “ ‘specific, cogent reason[s],’ ” Vilorio-Lopez, 852 F.2d at 1141, quoting Turcios v. INS, 821 F.2d 1396, 1399 (9th Cir.1987), or a “legitimate, articulable basis,” Damaize-Job, 787 F.2d at 1338, for their determinations. Therefore, the majority’s rule is not and cannot be the law.
The majority’s credibility finding is also at odds with the record. Though not necessary to its decision, the IJ questioned Maldonado’s credibility. The IJ stated: “The evidence given by the respondent, his testimony, and from his demeanor and from statements given to [sic] him at various times, I do not find the respondent credible on many of the items that he’s brought up.” Yet the majority presumes Maldonado to be credible. Furthermore, there are numerous discrepancies between Maldonado’s various renditions of his story. For example, at his hearing before the IJ, Maldonado testified that he and his friend were captured by the guerrillas. Yet in his statement attached to his initial asylum application, Maldonado stated that his friend was not captured but ran away when approached by the guerrillas. He also stated in his initial asylum application that he was present when his friend was recaptured and shot. But he testified before the IJ that he was not present and only had hearsay knowledge that his friend had been shot. This portion of Maldonado’s story, replete with inconsistency, is integral to his claim of a well-founded fear of persecution and thus should be scrutinized. See Vilorio-Lopez, 852 F.2d at 1141-42; Damaize-Job, 787 F.2d at 1337-38. Though a fact finder has never assessed whether this story is credible, the majority would have us presume that it is. Which version, I am not sure.
I would therefore remand for a credibility determination. This is no idle exercise. Deportation proceedings were initiated against Maldonado after he was arrested and pled guilty to carrying a concealed weapon. The IJ questioned his credibility and a cursory review of the record reveals significant factual inconsistencies in his story. Certainly there is good reason for inquiry. I, for one, am not prepared to find Maldonado credible through the use of a so-called presumption. It is the fact finder, not us, who should determine in the first instance whether Maldonado is telling the truth.