NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
REMI JEAN LOUIS, No. 10-70521
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-057-849
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 4, 2013**
Pasadena, California
Before: D.W. NELSON, WARDLAW, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Remy Louis (“Louis”) petitions for review of a final order of removal issued
by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we grant in part, deny in part and remand.
*
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).
Substantial evidence does not compel us to disturb the BIA’s adverse
credibility determination. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir.
2006). Both the BIA and the IJ based their adverse credibility findings on
“‘specific, cogent reasons’ found in the record.” Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102
(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006)).
These reasons go to the heart of Louis’s asylum claim. Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d
1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 2010). Louis bore the burden to put forth credible, persuasive
evidence that he suffered past persecution on account of his religion and
nationality, but his testimony was neither credible nor persuasive. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(B)(i).
Because the adverse credibility determination stands, the BIA correctly
affirmed the denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Pedro-Mateo v. INS, 224 F.3d 1147, 1150
(9th Cir. 2000); Kaur v. INS, 237 F.3d 1098, 1100 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Singh-
Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir. 1999)).
The BIA erred in denying Louis protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”) exclusively on the basis of the adverse credibility determination.
Nuru v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 1207, 1216 (9th Cir. 2005); Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156
(“A failure to establish eligibility for asylum does not necessarily doom an
2
application for relief under [CAT]”). “‘[A]ll evidence relevant to the possibility of
future torture shall be considered,’ even apart from any prior findings in the
asylum context.” Kamalthas v. INS, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting
8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(3)). The BIA abused its discretion by relying on findings in
the asylum context to deny relief under CAT, see id. at 1280, 1283–84, and,
specifically, by not considering the likelihood of Louis being tortured if removed
to Egypt, cf. Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1070–71 (9th Cir. 2007). We
accordingly grant the petition as to Louis’s claim for relief under CAT and remand
to the BIA for consideration of the relevant current country conditions and for
further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
Each party shall bear its own costs .
GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; REMANDED.
3