Diambekov

Diambekov v. Ashcroft

Good Law
120 F. App'x 163
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 18, 2005No. 03-70155, A75-520-526California1,287 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Alan Borisovich Diambekov, a native and citizen of Russia, appeals from a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). The IJ denied Diambekov’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary departure. Because the BIA limited its decision to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, we do not reach the other aspects of Diambekov’s claim. INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 15-16 , 123 S.Ct. 353 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002).

The IJ offered three reasons for his adverse credibility determination, none of which is supported by substantial evidence. 1 See Salaam v. INS, 229 F.3d 1234, 1237-38 (9th Cir.2000). The first was that although Diambekov “testified that the car in which he was a passenger was shot at and his friend’s wife was killed,” he “never mentioned [this] in his written application.” This is simply not true. In his written application, Diambekov twice referred expressly to an assassination attempt. Furthermore, it is well settled that the fact that Diambekov described the event in more detail during his hearing than in his application is…

Dissenting Opinion

Hall, J.

I respectfully dissent.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Diambekov is credible. INS v. Elias Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). The immigration judge (“IJ”) cited several material omissions in Diambekov’s testimony and several inconsistencies between his testimony and his application for asylum. Diambekov testified that his friend’s wife was killed when an unknown assailant shot into their car. His asylum application contains two references to an attempted assassination. First, Diambekov stated that “[t]hey ... tried to assassinate me.” In a separate section, he stated that “[o]ne day during training somebody tried to terminate me.” The IJ concluded that neither of these statements referred to the incident in the car. This conclusion was based on an implicit assumption that Diambekov’s statement that “[t]hey ... tried to assassinate me” referred to the assassination attempt “during training,” which was the only other incident mentioned in his asylum application. Regardless of which incident “[t]hey ... tried to assassinate me” refers to, there are relevant inconsistencies between Diambekov’s asylum application and his testimony…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.