Hashemi-Hafezi

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Vahid Hashemi-Hafezi (“Petitioner”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration’s (“BIA”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The facts and proceedings are known to the parties and are only repeated here as necessary. The panel reviews for substantial evidence the factual findings underlying the BIA’s determination that Petitioner did not qualify for asylum or withholding of removal. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). This standard is highly deferential. G u v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1018 (9th Cir.2006). Nevertheless, “[w]hile the substantial evidence standard demands deference to the IJ, [w]e do not accept blindly an IJ’s conclusion that a petitioner is not credible. Rather, we examine the record to see whether substantial evidence supports that conclusion and determine whether the reasoning employed by the IJ is fatally flawed.” Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002) (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The IJ must have “a legitimate articulable basis to question the petitioner’s credibility, and must offer a specific,…

dissenting:

This is a close case. If we were deciding this issue without the benefit of the immigration judge’s observations, I would be inclined to agree with my colleagues and grant the petition. However, the IJ observed that Petitioner’s “demeanor appears to be more consistent with an individual who was reciting a fabricated statement that he [has] no personal experience of, or personal experience as claimed.” The IJ concluded that the Petitioner was “not a credible witness.” We should give “special deference” to such inferences based on demeanor. Paredes-Urrestarazu v. INS, 36 F.3d 801, 818 (9th Cir.1994).

Additionally, the IJ found several inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony, some of which, for reasons the majority supplies, were either effectively explained by Petitioner or irrelevant. However, I would find that substantial evidence supports the Id’s adverse credibility determination with respect to Petitioner’s contradiction as to the date and length of his first arrest and the alterations to his passport. Because these inconsistencies cast doubt on Petitioner’s claim of political persecution, I would also find that they go to the heart of Petitioner’s claim. Li v.…