Thu Win v. Eric Holder, Jr.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM

1. Substantial evidence does not support the adverse credibility finding. The immigration judge (IJ) identified two main reasons for its adverse credibility determination. The first reason — the date of the alleged rape — fails, because (even if not trivial, see Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-42 (9th Cir.2007)) Win was not properly confronted or given an opportunity to explain the inconsistencies in the dates. Win (1) was not asked why there were two different versions of her statement, nor (2) was she asked why the date of the incident was corrected or changed. Rather, she was only asked why she stated that her application was correct, when it was not. Therefore, given the lack of confrontation and opportunity to explain the alleged inconsistent testimony in dates, this inconsistency does not support an adverse credibility finding. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1200, 1202 (9th Cir.2004) (“[Ujnclear [or vague] testimony may not serve as substantial evidence for an adverse credibility finding when an applicant is not given the chance to attempt to clarify his or her testimony.”).

The IJ also found Win not credible based on Win’s allegedly inconsistent…