Abrha

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

We may not reverse and adverse credibility finding unless the evidence compels that result. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B); Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003). In my view, the evidence does not compel a fact-finder to believe Petitioner.

In several respects, Petitioner’s testimony was contradictory, and in several respects, the testimony was inconsistent with his asylum application. Additionally, Petitioner’s testimony contradicted his own documentary evidence concerning the nature of his alleged relationship to Seye Abrha. Some of the inconsistencies, such as those pertaining to where he said he was seized, how he was related to Seye Abrha, and how well he knew Seye Abrha, went to the heart of the claim. See Malhi, 336 F.3d at 992-93 (“The discrepancies must go to the heart of the asylum claim”(eiting Valderrama v. INS, 260 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam))). The inconsistencies were significant and not trivial. Athough Petitioner tried to explain the discrepancies, the immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals were not compelled to credit the explanations.

Accordingly, the petition should be denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Yonatan Abrha, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA did not expressly adopt the IJ’s decision, but referred to and relied on his factual findings and specifically cited certain grounds mentioned by the IJ. We therefore review the BIA’s decision as illuminated by the IJ’s findings. See Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir.2000). Reviewing for substantial evidence, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.2000), we conclude that the agency’s adverse credibility determination is inadequately supported. See Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 660 (9th Cir.2003) (“credibility findings must be supported by specific, cogent reasons that are substantial and bear a legitimate nexus to the determination that the petitioner did not meet his burden of establishing eligibility for asylum.”).

First, there is no inconsistency between Abrha’s…