Alemayehu

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Bilen Alemayehu, a young Ethiopian woman, appeals a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of petitioner’s requests for asylum and withholding of removal, and the BIA’s denial of a petition to reopen to allow petitioner to pursue a claim pursuant to the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under the former § 106(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1105a, as amended by § 309(c)(4) of the Illegal Immigration Re *536 form and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996). Where, as here, the BIA affirms an IJ’s decision without opinion, we review the IJ’s decision, which constitutes the final agency determination. He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 595-96 (9th Cir. 2003).

The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The IJ noted that petitioner’s testimony was internally consistent, and based her adverse credibility determination on alleged inconsistencies between several of petitioner’s written submissions. These purported inconsistencies are insufficient to support…

concurring separately.

I concur in the majority’s judgment. As I read INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 , 123 S.Ct. 353 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002), our proper role is to simply remand the case to the Board of Immigration Appeals for reconsideration in the absence of the adverse credibility finding. See Ventura, 537 U.S. at 16 , 123 S.Ct. 353 (“the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency”) (internal quotations omitted). Notwithstanding the language in Faruk v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2004), Ventura bars us from holding that a petitioner is de facto eligible for asylum before the agency has had the opportunity to take another look at the claim in light of our reversal of the credibility finding.