Aydinyan

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Flora Aydinyan petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (I J) denial of her applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The IJ held that Petitioner was not credible because Petitioner allegedly made four inconsistent statements and was evasive during the hearing. Based on that holding, the IJ denied Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.

We review the IJ’s adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir .2004).

Substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s determination. Inconsistent statements can only serve as a basis for an adverse credibility determination if they are material and go to the heart of the claim. Zhu v. Mukasey, 537 F.3d 1034, 1038-39 (9th Cir.2008); Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 660 (9th Cir .2003).

The IJ identified four inconsistencies. First, the IJ concluded Petitioner’s declaration stating that a “few” people persecuted her and her testimony that “five or six” people…