Mohammed

MEMORANDUM *

Samya Siraje Mohammed (“Mohammed”), a citizen of Ethiopia, appeals a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Because the BIA summarily affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA. See Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 887-88 (9th Cir.2001).

The IJ denied Mohammed relief because of an adverse credibility determination. This determination was based on a number of reasons, all of which were either factually or legally erroneous. Factually, the IJ faulted Mohammed because of evidence the IJ said was missing from Mohammed’s testimony and her application. However, not only was this evidence in the record, it was particularly important, like Mohammed’s testimony about ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, the IJ erred by failing to discuss Mohammed’s corroborating evidence.

Legally, the IJ made her determination on grounds that are impermissible under Ninth Circuit law. For example, the IJ erroneously based her decision in part on a series of minor inconsistencies in dates. See, e.g., Bandari v. INS, *805 227 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th…