Yi Ding v. Mukasey

Good Law
301 F. App'x 654
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 21, 2008No. 05-70535California519 words

Opinion

dissent Opinion

Thomas, J.

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. “Minor inconsistencies in the record that do not relate to the basis of an applicant’s alleged fear of persecution, go to the heart of the asylum claim, or reveal anything about an asylum applicant’s fear for his safety are insufficient to support an adverse credibility finding.” Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 660 (9th Cir.2003). Here, the minor inconsistencies in the petitioner’s description of a traumatic event are not a cogent reason to believe she was lying, especially given that her words are chosen by a translator.

In addition, “an adverse credibility finding is improper when an IJ fails to address a petitioner’s explanation for a discrepancy or inconsistency.” Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th Cir.2006). The IJ did not address Ding’s explanation.

None of the remaining inconsistencies cited by the IJ satisfy the legal standard for an adverse credibility finding.

For these reasons, I would grant the petition.

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Yi Ding, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review from a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which denied Petitioner’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal on the *655 basis of an adverse credibility finding. Reviewing the adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence, Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir.2007), we deny the petition.

Petitioner’s testimony and application contained conflicting accounts of what occurred after her arrest, which was the central incident that went to the heart of her claim. See Ceballos-Castillo v. INS, 904 F.2d 519, 520 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that an inconsistency must go to the heart of the claim to support an adverse credibility finding). In her initial testimony, she said that she lost consciousness and fell from the chair on which she had been sitting, after which she knew nothing of what happened until she was sent back to her room to fill out a confession. By contrast, her application had recounted several things that one of the police officers did to her immediately after she fell from the chair. At the hearing, Petitioner was given a chance to explain the…

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.