FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JINPING ZHAO, No. 09-73374
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-422-235
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jinping Zhao, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2010). We grant the petition for review and we remand.
The agency based its adverse credibility determination in part on a finding
that Zhao appeared in person to make a change to his household registration on
June 15, 2005, a date when he claimed to be in detention. However, this date
appears under Zhao’s son’s registration card and Zhao did not testify that this
event, whatever it was, involved a change that would require Zhao to appear in
person. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (rejecting an
adverse credibility finding that was based on a mischaracterization of the
evidence). The agency also based its adverse credibility determination on a finding
that Zhao’s testimony that his son always lived with him was inconsistent with his
household registration. Substantial evidence does not support this finding because
the agency’s rejection of Zhao’s explanation as implausible is based on
speculation. See id. at 1087-88.
2 09-73374
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, and we remand Zhao’s claims
for reconsideration of Zhao’s credibility and such other issues as the BIA may
deem appropriate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 09-73374