FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 13 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VARSHABAHEN P. KHATRI; et al., No. 08-74391
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A097-608-426
A097-608-427
v. A097-608-428
A097-608-429
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 6, 2012 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Varshabahen P. Khatri and her family, natives and citizens of India, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.
2006). We grant the petition for review, and we remand.
The BIA, while acknowledging that the IJ did not make an adverse
credibility finding, nonetheless faulted Khatri for not corroborating her testimony.
Substantial evidence does not support this finding. See Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d
1107, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000) (where the BIA did not make an explicit adverse
credibility finding, the petitioner’s factual contentions are true, and no further
corroboration is required).
In addition, the BIA found that, even if Khatri demonstrated past
persecution, the government demonstrated that Khatri and her family could
reasonably relocate within India to avoid future harm because she is Hindu and the
riots are over. Substantial evidence does not support this finding because the BIA
did not adequately address Khatri’s fear that members of the Bharatiya Janata Party
and the police will be able to find her and harm her throughout India. See
Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2003) (the regulations direct
adjudicators to consider “whether the applicant would face other serious harm in
the place of suggested relocation”).
2 08-74391
Accordingly, we grant Khatri’s petition for review as to her asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims, and we remand for further proceedings
consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)
(per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 08-74391