Hua Yan v. Mukasey

MEMORANDUM ***

Hua Yan petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture. Since the BIA adopted, without opinion, the decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), “we review the decision of the IJ as the final agency determination.” Smolniakova v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th Cir.2005).

The IJ denied all relief based solely on an adverse credibility determination, citing perceived “inconsistencies and implausibilities” that left him “with the impression that the respondent [was] not providing truthful evidence about all the necessary elements of [his] story.” The IJ also relied on a negative assessment of Yan’s demeanor.

We recently summarized the standards governing our review of such a determination as follows:

Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir.2006) (citations, internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

Applying those standards, we conclude that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. At the heart of Yan’s claim is his testimony that he was arrested, detained, interrogated…