FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HASSANEN ABDULKARIM No. 06-72349
MOHAMED,
Agency No. A075-643-930
Petitioner,
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.
Hassanen Abdulkarim Mohamed, a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his
appeals from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decisions denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s findings of fact, including adverse credibility
findings. Al-Harbi v. INS, 242 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001). We grant the
petition for review and remand.
The IJ’s finding that Mohamed used a boiler-plate asylum application is not
supported by the record, because Mohamed substantially amended his application
and submitted a supplemental declaration. See Paramasamy v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d
1047, 1052-54 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting the agency’s reliance on “perceived
inconsistencies not based on the evidence”). In addition, the IJ’s finding that
Mohamed’s identity was in doubt because he used fraudulent documents to leave
Kenya and enter the United States is not supported because Mohamed’s use of the
false documents was consistent with his asylum claim. See Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379
F.3d 876, 889 (9th Cir. 2004). The IJ’s findings that Mohamed was not credible
because he provided an “unpalatable” explanation for possessing his mother’s
ration card, failed to display sufficient emotion and nervousness while testifying,
and was able to recall the precise dates of the attack on his family home and other
events are based on improper speculation or conjecture. See Ge v. Ashcroft, 367
F.3d 1121, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, the IJ’s perception that Mohamed
should have described the Tunni clan as patrilineal is not a basis for an adverse
2 06-72349
credibility finding, when Mohamed described multiple other Tunni clan
characteristics consistent with documents in the record. See Li v. Holder, 629 F.3d
1154, 1158 (9th Cir. 2011). Finally, the IJ’s remaining findings impermissibly rely
upon minor details that did not go to the heart of Mohamed’s claim. See
Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, substantial
evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Tekle v.
Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1055-56 (9th Cir. 2008).
We reverse the IJ’s determination that Mohamed filed a frivolous asylum
application because it is based on unsupported adverse credibility findings.
Accordingly, we remand for the agency to assess Mohamed’s asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims on the merits, deeming his testimony
credible. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); Soto-Olarte
v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1093-96 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 06-72349