Popp

MEMORANDUM *

The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) made an express adverse credibility finding: “I do not find the respondent’s testimony and fear of persecution to be credible.”

However, the IJ’s finding that Popp was not credible was not supported by substantial evidence. See Chen v. INS, 266 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.2001). The IJ based his adverse credibility finding on his belief that the Romanian government would not have continued to employ Popp as a pilot if it were concerned about his political views; that Popp’s position as a pilot would have made it harder, not easier, for the government to keep him under surveillance; and that Popp would have left Romania earlier if he truly feared persecution. The IJ’s disbelief was not based on any specific, cogent reason but rather on the IJ’s own speculation and conjecture. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1228 (9th Cir.2002) (reversing an IJ’s adverse credibility finding when “the IJ offered his own conjecture, which ‘is not a substitute for substantial evidence’ and should not be credited by this panel”). We deem Popp’s testimony credible. See Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 957-958 (9th Cir.1999).

Substantial evidence does not support the…

concurring.

Though I concur in the result, I do not fully agree with the majority’s grounds for decision. As I read the Immigration Judge’s decision, the IJ, despite loose language, was not making a credibility determination, but more precisely was holding that the facts described by petitioner Popp were insufficient to show past persecution or to create a credible fear of future persecution. Further, I do not read the record to demonstrate “constant surveillance” (it was occasional, if at all) or “numerous detentions and frequent interrogations” (there were two principal events). Notwithstanding my differences with the majority analysis, I concur in the judgment because of Popp’s uncontradicted evidence of the Romanian government’s beating of Popp, the Romanian government’s threat to his daughter, and related uncharitable treatment of him that demonstrate the required elements of an asylum claim under our precedent, which I am bound to follow.

It should be noted, however, that the current system for timely agency assessment of asylum claims may be broken and in need of repair. Popp left Romania in the early 1990s at a time of great domestic instability. Popp’s evidence…