Ayvazyan

MEMORANDUM *

Hayk Ayvazyan, his wife Margarit, and his son Armen petition for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We grant the petition, hold that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.

I.

The BIA summarily affirmed the oral decision and order of the immigration judge (“IJ”) without opinion. Thus, “we evaluate the IJ’s decision as we would that of the Board.” Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 925 (9th Cir.2004). The IJ found that “none of the respondents was a credible witness,” and on that basis denied all relief. 1 ‘We review an adverse credibility finding under the substantial evidence standard---- Although the substantial evidence standard is deferential, the IJ must provide a specific cogent reason for the adverse credibility finding.” Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002) (citation and quotation omitted). Further, “The IJ must have a legitimate articulable basis to question the petitioner’s credibility, and must offer a…

dissenting.

Given the substantial evidence standard, I cannot join my colleagues. We are only allowed to overturn a IJ’s adverse credibility determination only if the evidence presented was “so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could find that [Petitioners were] not credible.” Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) (emphasis added); see also Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1258 (9th Cir.2003). I find it difficult to say that “no reasonable factfinder” could agree with the IJ in this case.

The IJ found the Petitioners incredible based on both his observations and his review of their testimony and supporting documents. We have no basis for questioning the IJ’s observations, and the IJ’s finding that there is an inconsistency between Hayk and Margarit’s testimony and the written documentation they supplied is supported by the record. Both testified that after Hayk was beaten he was treated at home by a doctor friend. Yet the only document they provided states that he was treated at the hospital. Hayk could have *537 actually been treated in the hospital as the certificate states and later, when appearing before the IJ, embellished his story. His story that police…