Manasian

MEMORANDUM *

Lousik Manasian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , and we grant the petition for review.

I

The IJ and the BIA denied Manasian’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal on the ground that she lacked credibility. We conclude that the IJ’s and the BIA’s adverse credibility findings were not supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., Singh v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir.2004) (requiring this court to review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence).

In making the adverse credibility findings, the IJ and the BIA relied in substantial part on inconsistencies in Manasian’s accounts of a robbery, kidnapping, and rape she allegedly suffered before fleeing Armenia. First, the IJ and the BIA cited the fact that the affidavit accompanying Manasian’s asylum application did not clearly identify the individuals responsible for the kidnapping…

dissenting.

The Supreme Court held in INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 , 112 S.Ct. *717 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) that determinations by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) “must be upheld if ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’ ” For the court “[t]o reverse the BIA finding we must find that the evidence not only supports ” petitioner’s conclusion, “but compels it.” Id. at 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 (emphasis in original). Indeed, to overturn the BIA’s judgment, the petitioner must show that the evidence is “so compelling that no reasonable factfin-der could fail to find” that relief should have been granted. Id. at 484 , 112 S.Ct. 812 .

Here, the Immigration Judge (IJ) noted significant discrepancies between Mana-sian’s 1994 and 2000 declarations. Specifically, in her 1994 declaration, Manasian stated that she was abused by criminals and helped by the police, while the 2000 declaration re-characterized these incidents to portray the police as the abusers. Similarly, the 1994 declaration made a single offhand reference to “unspecified incidents of persecution,” see Maj. Op. at 716, while the 2000…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 05 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LOUSIK MANASIAN, No. 05-77124

Petitioner, Agency No. A072-529-582

v.

MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted March 2, 2010 Pasadena, California

Before: CANBY, GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Lousiµ Manasian, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ('BIA') dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge's ('IJ') denial of her application for asylum, withholding of

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ('CAT'). We have

jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. y 1252, and we grant the petition for review.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. I

The IJ and the BIA denied Manasian's claims for asylum and withholding…