FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NUNE AGHASI SHKHYAN, No. 08-74434
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-045-226
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 7, 2013 **
Pasadena, California
Before: THOMAS and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and BEISTLINE, Chief
District Judge.***
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9 th 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).
***
The Honorable Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
After entering the United States on a tourist visa, Nune Aghasi Shkhyan
applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention
against Torture (“CAT”). An Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied all requested relief;
the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed per curiam. We grant
Shkyan’s petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
1. Shkhyan, an Armenian scientist, refused to work on a project in Siberia
because she feared it would benefit the Russian military. State security officials
then interrogated her on three occasions, once detaining her for two nights and
slapping her face. After her release from the last detention, Shkhyan obtained a B-
2 tourist visa and entered the United States. In these removal proceedings, she
conceded removability but sought asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
relief.
2. An IJ found Shkhyan’s testimony about her experiences after refusing to
work on the Siberian project generally credible, but did not credit her claim that
her husband was beaten by state security officers after she left Armenia because of
the absence of a corroborating statement from her husband. Although an IJ may
require such corroboration, its absence may form the basis for an adverse
2
credibility finding only if the IJ “undertake[s] the . . . sequential analysis” required
by Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1093 (9th Cir. 2011). Under Ren, the IJ must
first determine whether an applicant’s credible testimony is sufficient to meet her
burden of proof, and if not, provide her with “an opportunity either to produce the
requisite corroborative evidence or to explain why that evidence is not reasonably
available.” Id. Shkhyan was never informed that she would be required to provide
a statement from her husband.
3. The IJ’s adverse credibility finding therefore cannot stand under Ren.
Because that determination supported the IJ’s conclusion that Shkhyan had not
shown a reasonable fear of future persecution, we grant the petition for review and
remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED
3