Court Opinion

ID: 9486609
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:54:17.604929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:49.906384
License: Public Domain

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
While I believe that this is a close case, especially given the majority’s admission that doubts have been raised about the petitioner’s credibility, Majority Opinion at 343,1 am persuaded that the immigration judge (“U”) made implicit findings concerning the petitioner’s credibility. Because these findings are entitled to “considerable deference,” DeValle v. INS, 901 F.2d 787, 792 (9th Cir.1990), I would affirm the BIA’s decision that Ms. Hartooni does not qualify for asylum.
The majority maintains that the IJ did not make findings on the credibility of Ms. Har-*344tooni’s claims because he did not “make, findings of fact regarding which, if any, of her specific claims were questionable.”- Majority Opinion at 342. However, the IJ did state, after a detailed exposition of Ms. Hartooni’s allegations of persecution, that “[t]he cumulative effect of the respondent’s testimony and application therefore leads me to conclude that the respondent has not established a credible claim to persecution.” IJ Opinion at 8-9. This conclusion establishes that the IJ did not find credible the petitioner’s claim of fear of persecution based on the facts of her story. It is evident from the IJ’s recitation of Ms. Hartooni’s allegations of fear and her contradictory statements, that the IJ considered her story fully and found that conflicting facts destroyed the credibility of each of her claims of fear. Since the petitioner has not provided any explanation for the inconsistency of her statements, the only conclusion the IJ could draw was that her testimony was not credible. The IJ’s eonelusory statement should be enough. This court should not require that an IJ recite some talismanic rote on credibility to meet the burden.
The BIA did not err in according considerable deference to the IJ’s conclusion on Ms. Hartooni’s credibility since it was supported by substantial evidence. The facts that Ms. Hartooni’s parents are practicing Christians living in Iran, that they run a successful business without any apparent government interference, and that they are allowed to send a considerable amount of money to their children living in the United States suggest that Ms. Hartooni could five safely with her parents in Iran. This is more than enough to support the BIA’s determination that Ms. Hartooni did not qualify for asylum. INS v. Elias-Zacarias, — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 812, 815, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (BIA’s decision cannot be reversed unless petitioner presented such evidence that reasonable fact-finder would have to conclude that requisite fear of persecution existed).
I respectfully dissent.