NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 26 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
AZBILEG SHURA; et al., No. 09-70030
10-73768
Petitioners,
Agency Nos. A098-838-000
v. A098-838-001
A098-838-002
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent. MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated cases, Azbileg Shura and his family, natives and
citizens of Mongolia, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
*
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).
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and of the BIA’s order denying their motion
to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings, applying the new 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 in No. 09-70030
and remand, and we dismiss the petition for review in No. 10-73768.
There is no inconsistency between Shura’s documentary evidence and his
testimony with respect to the year that the Healthy Society Citizen’s Movement
started. See Morgan v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 1202, 1209 (9th Cir. 2008) (no
inconsistency between application and testimony). In addition, the discrepancy
regarding the date which Shura became Secretary of the Healthy Society Citizen’s
Movement is a trivial inconsistency that has no bearing on Shura’s credibility. See
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1085-86 (9th Cir. 2011) (“minor discrepancies in
dates that...cannot be viewed as attempts by the applicant to enhance his claims of
persecution have no bearing on credibility”). Finally, considering the “totality of
the circumstances,” the last inconsistency the IJ cited appears to be an “innocent
mistake.” See id. at 1087. Therefore, substantial evidence does not support the
agency’s adverse credibility finding. See id. at 1089. Accordingly, we remand
Shura’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims, on an open record, for
09-70030
further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder,
555 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th Cir. 2009); INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)
(per curiam).
In light of our above conclusion, we dismiss as moot Shura’s challenge to
the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen.
No. 09-70030: PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
No. 10-73768: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
09-70030