Tupikovskaya

MEMORANDUM *

Galina Edvardouna Tupikovskaya (“Tu-pikovskaya”), a native and citizen of Uzbekistan, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We grant the petition and remand to the BIA.

The IJ denied petitioner’s applications for relief because he found Tupikovskaya not credible. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision without opinion under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (e)(4). Accordingly, we review the IJ’s decision. See Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 925 (9th Cir.2004). We review credibility determinations for substantial evidence. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089,1091 (9th Cir.2009).

I. Credibility

We recite the facts only as needed to explain our decision. The IJ based his adverse credibility finding on his misstatements of the record, speculation, failure to provide an opportunity to explain discrepancies or to consider those explanations, an unsubstantiated demeanor finding, and an erroneous requirement of corroborative…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. Substantial evidence supported the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility finding. At a minimum, three points on which the IJ relied support that finding.

First, there were discrepancies between Petitioner’s testimony and that of her son. Petitioner’s son testified that he was “close” to Petitioner and that they “sharefd] details about [their] lives.” Petitioner’s son testified that he did not learn of Petitioner’s asserted membership in BIRLIK until 1999, despite Petitioner’s claim to have joined BIRLIK in 1997. In addition, Petitioner testified that she was arrested once in Uzbekistan because of her research and arrested a second time in Moscow because of her speech at a political rally there. Petitioner’s son testified that Petitioner “told [him] ... what happened” regarding her arrest in Uzbekistan with the exception of “dates.” But Petitioner’s son then testified that Petitioner had been arrested only once, in Uzbekistan, probably because of her speech in Moscow. The IJ’s questions were not confusing and do not account for these discrepancies.

Second, the IJ’s statement that Petitioner showed “virtually no emotion when testifying…