Prasad

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Iqbalun Nisha Prasad and her three daughters, who are ethnic Indian citizens of Fiji, petition for review of a final order of removal.

1. The immigration judge (“IJ”), whose decision was upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), held that if the lead Petitioner’s testimony were be *397 lieved, then “it would be clear that asylum should be granted in this particular case.” But the IJ also held that the lead Petitioner was not credible. We conclude that the adverse credibility determination is not supported by the kinds of “specific, cogent reasons,” Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004), that this court’s cases require.

2. The IJ characterized the wording of Petitioner’s testimony as “extreme” and “one-dimensional.” But the testimony that the IJ cited concerned general conditions in Fiji following the coup (rather than the specific basis of Petitioner’s asylum claim), and the testimony was consistent with the State Department’s report of those conditions. In the circumstances the stated reason is not “factually supported,” nor does it strike “at the heart” of the claim. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004). The IJ’s…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

In her asylum application, Prasad said that her reason for seeking asylum in the United States was that “I was harassed, humiliated, beaten, looted, raped.” Of course, rape is the most serious of her allegations, but it is striking that she mentions that she was looted, yet fails to mention that her store was burned out in her application. When she does mention arson in her application, in her “background information,” she claims that Indians’ “houses” were set on fire, but she again fails to mention that her store was set on fire. Then at her asylum interview she yet again failed to mention that her shop was burned down, despite making six other changes to her application. She was also given the opportunity to amend her asylum application at the beginning of the immigration hearing, and while she made four changes at that time, she did not say that her shop was burned to the ground. The omission of the burning of her shop was a significant and relevant omission, which sufficiently supports the immigration judge’s adverse credibility finding.

. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004).