Amar Jit v. William Barr

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 14 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMAR JIT, No. 15-73695 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-735-059 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted March 8, 2019 Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Amar Jit, a citizen of India, petitions for review of a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying Jit’s 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant Jit’s petition and remand to the BIA for further proceedings on Jit’s asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture claims. See INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 18 (2002) (per curiam). We review the immigration judge (“IJ”) and BIA’s adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. Hu v. Holder, 652 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2011). “‘Substantial evidence’ means the BIA’s determination is supported by ‘reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record.’” Haile v. Holder, 658 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972, 983 (9th Cir. 2007)). Even after the REAL ID Act, the IJ’s “reasons must consist of something more than ‘[t]rivial inconsistencies that under the total circumstances have no bearing on a petitioner’s veracity.’” Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1085 (9th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010)). The BIA issued a reasoned opinion, so we review “the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA” and “look to the IJ’s oral decision as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion.” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) 2 (quoting Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008)). We hold that the adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. 1. The first reason for the adverse credibility determination—that Jit went to see a pediatrician or child specialist, Dr. Paul—did not support the adverse credibility finding. The IJ considered Jit’s “inability to provide what this court views to be an adequate explanation regarding why he was treated by a pediatrician” in making the adverse credibility determination. The BIA reasoned that “[w]hen asked why he was receiving care from a child specialist,” Jit did not give an adequate explanation. However, the record indicates that he did not know what needed explanation. Jit explained (and the BIA acknowledged) that he saw Dr. Paul because Dr. Paul was his family doctor. There is no reason why Jit could not have seen a pediatrician, his family doctor, for his “superficial abrasions.” That Jit saw a pediatrician furnishes no evidence for an adverse credibility determination. Even in the United States patients are often seen ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals