FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIAMAK OBED ABEDKHORASANI, No. 08-73457
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-856-062
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Siamak Obed Abedkhorasani, a native and citizen of Iran, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”), and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). We grant the petition for review and we
remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility
determination, because the agency either wrongly concluded statements were
inconsistent, see Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1054-55 (9th Cir. 2008)
(adverse credibility finding not supported where testimony was internally
consistent); Morgan v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2008) (no
inconsistency between application and testimony), or relied upon perceived
inconsistencies without providing Abedkhorasani an opportunity to explain, see
Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2009) (petitioner must be
given an opportunity to explain perceived inconsistencies).
Accordingly, we grant the petition with respect to Abedkhorasani’s asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims, and remand to the BIA, on an open
record, for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v.
Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); Soto-Olarte, 555 F.3d at 1095-
96.
2 08-73457
In light of our above conclusions, we need not reach Abedkhorasani’s
challenge to the denial of his motion to remand.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 08-73457