Court Opinion

ID: 9853105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:42:43.820855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:40.968497
License: Public Domain

FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
On the facts of this case, I cannot say that the BIA abused its discretion;1 I *920cannot say that it acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law2 when it denied asylum. As I see it, the majority’s decision to the contrary is another example of our picking apart the opinions of the agency, while purporting to apply an abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1060-61 (9th Cir.2006) (Kozinski, J., dissenting). It is just another chapter in our divide-and-conquer strategy. See Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 890-91 (9th Cir.2004) (Tallman, J., dissenting); see also United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274, 122 S.Ct. 744, 751, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) (reflecting on the impropriety of divide-and-conquer analysis when reasonableness is in question). That strategy can make it seem that we are deferring when we are not actually doing so. It is not appropriate. In fact, Congress expressed its disdain for that approach when it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to blunt some of the more obvious maneuvers. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B). Unfortunately, the amended statute does not control this case,3 and its mere existence has not yet induced us to remove any of the sudd that makes it so difficult for immigration judges to navigate when either the credibility or the reasonableness of an alien’s behavior is in question. Of course, the mere fact that Gulla was credible is not sufficient to show that he acted reasonably; those concepts should not be conflated.4
Thus, I respectfully dissent.

. Lopez-Galarza v. INS, 99 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir.1996).

. Andriasian v. INS, 180 F.3d 1033, 1040 (9th Cir.1999).

. It applies "to applications for asylum, withholding, or other relief from removal made on or after” May 11, 2005. REAL ID Act § 101(h)(2), Pub.L. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 305 (2005).

. It should also be noted that while it is true that in Matter of Pula, 19 I & N Dec. 467, 474 (BIA 1987), the BIA indicated that in exercising discretion "the danger of persecution should generally outweigh all but the most egregious of adverse factors,” that was in the context of a case where withholding of deportation had also been denied. Here, Gulla was granted withholding of removal, which makes a great difference; he will not be returned to Iraq. See Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1141 (9th Cir.2004); Pula, 19 I & N Dec. at 474. We should not vastly expand our review by ignoring that crucial difference.