NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2016
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
YUQIU LIANG, No. 13-72242
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-716-665
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued March 11, 2016
Submitted May 26, 2016
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Yuqiu Liang petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We grant the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination. The BIA relied on seven inconsistencies identified by the
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) in order to find Liang not credible. But each
inconsistency is either unsupported by substantial evidence or is the type of “trivial
inconsistenc[y] that under the total circumstances ha[s] no bearing on a petitioner’s
veracity [and] should not form the basis of an adverse credibility determination.”
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010).
First, Liang’s testimony regarding the closure of her business was not
inconsistent. The BIA’s determination that the police could not have closed
Liang’s business if her license had expired is speculative. Second, any
inconsistency about whether Liang’s business license listed the floor number of her
booth is trivial. Third, Liang’s testimony that she owned a small business was not
inconsistent with the information contained in her household registry. As Liang
explained, her registry reflected an old job because, in China, there is no “formal
procedure” for notifying government authorities about being laid off and small
businesses are never written down “on your house registration.” Fourth, Liang did
not testify inconsistently about the payment she made for her business booth. The
BIA failed to sufficiently address Liang’s testimony that the Chinese government
refused to provide her a receipt for her payment but nonetheless provided a note
2
documenting her ownership. Further, Liang testified that she moved the note from
one location to another; she never claimed it was in two places at once. Fifth, any
inconsistency related to Liang’s age is trivial. Sixth, the minor inconsistency
between the number on Liang’s identification card and the one on her household
registry is similarly trivial. Seventh, and finally, substantial evidence does not
support finding an inconsistency in Liang’s testimony about her fear of the local
police. Specifically, the BIA failed to sufficiently address the fact that passports
are issued by a “separate . . . work unit[],” which supports Liang’s fear that the
police would prevent her from relocating if she returned even though they allowed
her to obtain a passport.
In sum, none of the BIA’s seven inconsistencies supports its adverse
credibility ruling. Because the BIA based its denial of Liang’s application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief on the adverse credibility finding,
all three claims must be remanded to the BIA.
Petition GRANTED.
3