FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 23 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IBRAHIM MIKHAEL NABIL-SOBHI, No. 05-74318
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-782-822
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 4, 2009
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, BERZON and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Ibrahim Mikhael Nabil-Sobhi (“Nabil-Sobhi”), a native of Egypt and citizen
of Lebanon, seeks review of the denial of his petition for asylum. The immigration
judge (“IJ”) found that Nabil-Sobhi’s testimony and evidence would be sufficient,
if credited, to establish eligibility for asylum. He did not, however, find Nabil-
Sobhi credible. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed without
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
opinion. Because the IJ failed to give a cogent reason supported by substantial
evidence and going to the heart of Nabil-Sobhi’s claim for asylum, we reverse the
adverse credibility determination and remand for further proceedings. See Singh v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006).
Nabil-Sobhi testified to experiences of persecution at the hands of both the
Egyptian and Syrian authorities on account of his religion, Coptic Orthodox
Christianity, and his political affiliation with a Christian militia in Lebanon. His
testimony was as follows. Between 1990 and 2001, while living in Christian areas
of Lebanon and working as a painter for the Christian militia there, Nabil-Sobhi
was detained three times by the Syrian authorities and interrogated and severely
beaten on each occasion. During the same period, his brother in Egypt was
arrested by the authorities there and forced to convert to Islam. Nabil-Sobhi helped
his brother and father—and, later, other brothers also—to escape to Lebanon,
where his brothers joined the Christian militia. In 1995, Nabil-Sobhi traveled to
Egypt to visit his mother. He was detained by Egyptian state security for two
months, accused of converting Muslims to Christianity, beaten, and tortured. Upon
release, he returned to Lebanon after being warned never again to enter Egypt.
1. The IJ gave several reasons for disbelieving this testimony. First, he
concluded that Nabil-Sobhi was familiar with U.S. immigration law and therefore
2
would not have entered the U.S. from Mexico without inspection if he truly
intended to seek asylum. This ground fails because no substantial evidence
supports the conclusion that Nabil-Sobhi was familiar with U.S. immigration law
before he entered the United States.
2. Next, the IJ based his adverse credibility determination on the ground that
Nabil-Sobhi made an untrue statement upon his detention by DHS that he had two
children. This does not go the heart of Nabil-Sobhi’s claim. See Kaur v. Ashcroft,
379 F.3d 876, 884 (9th Cir. 2004).
3. The IJ also cited the fact that, when asked during the initial interview for
the names of his family members, Nabil-Sobhi became overcome by emotion and
did not give them. This does not go to the heart of Nabil-Sobhi’s claim.
4. The IJ also relied upon a perceived conflict between Nabil-Sobhi’s
testimony that his father died of a heart attack and a document submitted by the
government, which indicated diabetes and stroke. This does not go to the heart of
Nabil-Sobhi’s claim.
5. The IJ also disbelieved Nabil-Sobhi’s accounts of persecution on the
ground that if the Egyptian and Syrian authorities had truly targeted him, they
would have done worse than detain, torture, and release him. This was speculation
3
that cannot support an adverse credibility determination. See Kumar v. Gonzales,
444 F.3d 1043, 1049-51 (9th Cir. 2006).
6. The IJ also suspected that Nabil-Sobhi fought in the Christian militia.
This finding is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Nabil-Sobhi
consistently testified he worked only in a non-combat capacity, and the IJ’s other
grounds for suspicion were mere speculation.
7. Finally, the IJ interpreted Nabil-Sobhi’s demeanor as evasive and
declined to credit his testimony on that basis. Although we give special deference
to a credibility determination based on demeanor, Paredes-Urrestarazu v. INS, 36
F.3d 801, 818-19 (9th Cir. 1994), the transcript does not support the conclusion
that Nabil-Sobhi was evasive, as opposed to disorganized, volatile, and upset.
Because the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not grounded in cogent
reasons supported by substantial evidence and going to the heart of the asylum
claim, we reverse the determination that Nabil-Sobhi is ineligible for asylum.
The petition for review is GRANTED.
4