NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUL 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
AIDA TSATURYAN; et al., No. 10-71283
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A097-358-525
A097-458-105
v. A097-458-106
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Aida Tsaturyan and her children, natives and citizens of Armenia, petition
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision (“IJ”) denying their application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
*
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).
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the
agency’s findings of fact, including credibility findings, for substantial evidence
and must uphold the finding unless the evidence compels a contrary result. Tekle
v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). We grant the petition for review,
and remand.
The BIA specifically mentioned six of the reasons provided by the IJ in
support of the adverse credibility finding. Substantial evidence does not support
the adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Tsaturyan’s
testimony and a report of a psychological evaluation or supporting affidavits in the
record, because Tsaturyan was not given an opportunity to explain the perceived
discrepancies. See id. at 1053; see also Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 957 (9th
Cir. 1999) (IJ erroneously faulted petitioner for not providing further details,
“especially when [petitioner] was not given notice that [she] should provide such
information, nor asked at the hearing to do so”). Substantial evidence also does
not support the adverse credibility determination based on an inconsistency in
Tsaturyan’s testimony as to whether she stopped working in June or July of 2000.
See Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th Cir. 2000) (“alleged inconsistencies
in dates that reveal nothing about a petitioner’s credibility cannot form the basis of
an adverse credibility finding”).
2 10-71283
The BIA alternatively concluded that, even if credible, Tsaturyan failed to
establish past persecution because her experiences did not rise to the level of
persecution. Substantial evidence supports this conclusion. See Hoxha v. Ashcroft,
319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA, however, did not address whether
Tsaturyan has a well-founded fear of persecution if credible. Accordingly, we
grant the petition with respect to Tsaturyan’s asylum, withholding of removal, and
CAT claims and we remand, on an open record, for further proceedings consistent
with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam);
Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 10-71283