FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GYULIZAR MATEVOSYAN, No. 07-74401
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-154-960
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Gyulizar Matevosyan, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of
Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence, Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655,
658 (9th Cir. 2003), and we grant the petition for review and remand.
The IJ’s adverse credibility determination, based on the discrepancies
between Matevosyan’s declaration and her testimony regarding when she sought
help from a human rights committee and the soldiers’ mothers union, is not
supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 660 (“Minor inconsistencies in the
record that do not . . . reveal anything about an asylum applicant’s fear for his
safety are insufficient to support an adverse credibility finding.”).
The IJ alternately found that, even if credible, Matevosyan did not
demonstrate eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. However, it is
unclear whether the BIA adopted this alternate finding. In addition, it is unclear
what the BIA’s reason is, if any, for denying Matevosyan’s CAT claim.
Accordingly, we remand for clarification. See Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400
F.3d 1185, 1194 (9th Cir. 2005) (remanding because “[w]e will not guess at the
theory underlying . . . the BIA’s opinion”) (internal quotations omitted).
In light of our disposition, we decline to address Matevosyan’s due process
contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
2 07-74401