Court Opinion

ID: 9497903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:03:16.041054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:29.702106
License: Public Domain

LEAVY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result. The adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence.
This circuit has articulated a rule of law that “Minor inconsistencies in the record that do not relate to the basis of an applicant’s alleged fear of persecution, go to the heart of the asylum claim, or reveal anything about an asylum applicant’s fear for his safety are insufficient to support an adverse credibility finding.” Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 660 *1094(9th Cir.2003). The several citations to medical and psychological journals that discuss the scientific explanations for lapses in date recall, none of which are in the record, suggest that our appellate decision is premised on factfinding that has not been tested by the adversarial process. Furthermore, the opinion incorrectly suggests that an inaccurate process of date recollection is the reason underlying our “minor discrepancy” jurisprudence. I would find it sufficient to rely upon our well-established precedent. By engaging in our own factfinding, we invite another court, or even an administrative body, to reject our holding as precedent, if, in its superior factfinding process, it finds that we are wrong on the facts.