Terefe

Terefe v. Gonzales

Good Law
133 F. App'x 413
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 27, 2005No. 03-71988California931 words

Opinion

Dissenting Opinion

Bea, J.

dissenting.

The majority vacates and remands this case to the BIA for further consideration in light of our decisions in Kebede v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 808 (9th Cir.2004) and *415 Singh v. Gonzales, 408 F.3d 1081 (2005). I respectfully dissent.

The record contains substantial evidence that supports the IJ’s adverse credibility findings. For example, in her 1993 asylum application Terefe claimed physical abuse. However, in her interview with the asylum officer, Terefe denied suffering physical abuse. The majority holds that it is improper to rely upon any inconsistencies with Terefe’s interview with the asylum officer because that interview was not properly documented. See Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081 (2005). However, unlike the petitioner in Singh, Terefe submitted a “rebuttal” letter on June 8, 1993, in which she affirmed and ratified her statements in the interview by twice stating that she was not subject to physical abuse. Thus, even if this court discounts the inconsistency with the interview itself, substantial evidence still supports the IJ’s finding that Terefe created inconsistency between her application and her asylum interview about whether she suffered any…

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Melkamsera Terefe, a citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) *414 denial of her applications for asylum and withholding of removal, and request for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We vacate and remand to the BIA for further consideration in light of our intervening decisions, Kebede v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 808, 811 (9th Cir.2004) (failing to mention a rape in an initial asylum interview will not support an adverse credibility determination when the alien has persuasively explained that the rape was not reported because of shame) and Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1089 (2005) (holding that eonelusory summaries of an asylum interview are “not substantial record evidence supporting the IJ’s adverse credibility ground” unless accompanied by supporting evidence).

Terefe claims that her political activities in Ethiopia led to her arrest and detention for fifteen days in 1992. During this period, Terefe asserts that she was raped in two separate incidents. The IJ determined that Terefe was not credible and rejected her asylum and CAT claims on this basis. In an…

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.