FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LIANSHENG SHEN, No. 08-70583
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-306-444
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.
Liansheng Shen, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
*
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).
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Tekle v. Mukasey, 533
F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008), and we grant the petition for review and remand
for further proceedings.
Substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination because the perceived inconsistency regarding whether Shen
considers Zhong Gong to be a religion was based on a faulty translation, and
Shen’s testimony and application are not inconsistent regarding why he petitioned
the city and the extent to which he was mistreated in custody. See Bandari v. INS,
227 F.3d 1160, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2000). In addition, Shen’s failure to mention in
his asylum application that he was transferred to a nearby detention center is a
minor omission. See id. at 1167 (“[T]he mere omission of details is insufficient to
uphold an adverse credibility finding.”). Because the noted inconsistencies are not
supported by substantial evidence, Shen is not required to corroborate his claim
with additional evidence. See Salaam v. INS, 229 F.3d 1234, 1239 (9th Cir. 2000).
We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings to determine
whether, taking Shen’s testimony as true, he is eligible for asylum, withholding of
2 08-70583
removal, or CAT relief. See Solo-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th
Cir. 2009); INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 08-70583