Wijenayake

Wijenayake v. Holder

Good Law
358 F. App'x 902
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 9, 200907-70930California310 words

Opinion

Opinion

Asoka Abeysekera Wijenayake, his wife, Marie Ayona Kamalin Wijenayake, and their children, natives and citizens of Sri Lanka, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006), and we review de novo claims of due process violations in removal proceedings, Sharma v. INS, 89 F.3d 545, 547 (9th Cir.1996). We grant in part and deny in part the petition for review. '

Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Lopez-Reyes v. INS, 79 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir.1996) (“It is well-settled that an applicant’s testimony is not per se lacking in credibility simply because it includes details that are not set forth in the asylum application.”); Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1103-07 (9th Cir.2009) (minor inconsistency insufficient to support adverse credibility determination).…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.