Pe

MEMORANDUM *

Asylum petitioners have the burden of proving by “credible, direct, and specific evidence” that they are entitled to relief. Meza-Manay v. INS, 139 F.3d 759, 763 (9th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although credible testimony may satisfy the burden of proof, if the IJ “does not believe the applicant or does not know what to believe, the applicant’s failure to corroborate his testimony can be fatal to his asylum application.” Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1090 (9th Cir.2000); see also Abovian v. INS, 219 F.3d 972, 978 (9th Cir.2000) (“[I]ndepen *590 dent corroborative evidence is not required from asylum applicants where their testimony is unrefuted.” (emphasis added)).

Petitioner was found not credible because he hesitated during key parts of his testimony; his account of conditions in the Philippines was belied by the State Department Country Report; and he “offered no evidence, beyond his own testimony” to support his claim. The BIA may not require corroboration where petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to provide it. But here petitioner had relatives living in the United States who were familiar with petitioner’s alleged persecution. Petitioner…

I respectfully dissent. Stripped to its essence, the conclusion that Dr. Pe “offered no evidence beyond his own testimony” is a bare assertion of negative credibility based solely upon the absence of corroborative documentation and upon his hesitancy in addressing a minor, collateral matter. Such a finding does not comport with our precedent. See Salaam v. INS, 229 F.3d 1234, 1238 (9th Cir.2000); Abovian v. INS, 219 F.3d 972, 978-79 (9th Cir.2000).