Soto-Olarte

MEMORANDUM *

Jorge Arturo Soto-Olarte (“SotoOlarte”) and his wife Maria Jesus Esteves-La Torre (“La Torre”), natives and citizens of Peru, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)’s opinion dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge (“IJ”)’s denial of their petitions for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Because the BIA conducted its own analysis but also relied in large part on the IJ’s reasoning, we review the BIA’s opinion as well as that of the IJ. See Plasencia-Ayala v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir.2008). Reviewing for substantial evidence both the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility findings and their determinations of the petitioners’ ineligibility for asylum and withholding of removal, see Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 884 (9th Cir.2004), we grant the petition for review and remand this case to the BIA for further proceedings.

The IJ based her finding that Soto-Olarte was not credible 1 on the inconsistencies between his account of a home invasion by Shining Path terrorists on June 19, 2003 and the police report…

Dissenting:

The adverse credibility finding of the Immigration Judge (IJ) is supported by substantial evidence. There are substantial discrepancies between the police report of the incident on June 19, 2003, on the one hand, and petitioner’s written statement and testimony, on the other hand. Petitioner was on notice of the discrepancies between his narrative of the incident and the narrative in the police report, and of the need to explain the discrepancies. Petitioner’s explanation for the discrepancies only accounted for the police report’s failure to mention the Shining Path. The other material discrepancies also go to the heart of petitioner’s claim. Petitioner did not explain those discrepancies. Because substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that petitioner’s testimony was not credible, I would deny the petition. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.2007); Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004).