Vadim Frumusachi v. Loretta E. Lynch
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
1. Substantial evidence does not support the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) adverse credibility determination. The BIA determined that Frumusachi was not credible because he had discrepancies between his testimony and written application. Most notably, Frumusachi did not include his November 2006 arrest in his written materials, nor did he allege that his family has been harassed since he left Moldova.
As a general rule, “we have held that a mere lack of detail in . the initial .asylum application that the applicant later clarifies at the immigration hearing cannot serve as a basis for an adverse credibility finding.” Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.2011) (citation omitted). “Omissions are not given much significance because applicants usually do not speak English and are not represented by counsel” when they file asylum applications. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir.2010). However, we have also said that omissions that are so “pivotal” and “dramatic” to an applicant’s asylum claim may constitute substantial evidence to support an adverse credibility finding. Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th. Cir.2003).