This court has jurisdiction to review of a decision of the BIA affirming the decision of an IJ finding the petitioner not credible and denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision as the final agency determination, this court reviews the IJ’s decision directly.
Where the IJ failed to take into account the context of individual statements, to confront the petitioner concerning some alleged inconsistencies and to respond to explanations of alleged inconsistencies, and where the IJ found inconsistencies between the petitioner’s testimony and his own mere speculation and conjecture, the IJ’s finding of the petitioner as incredible based on seven purported inconsistencies in her testimony was not based on substantial evidence.
When substantial evidence does not support an adverse credibility determination, the petitioner is deemed credible. Where the government has conceded that if the petitioner’s testimony was credible, she has established past persecution on account of political opinion, the burden then shifts to the government to demonstrate that there has been a fundamental change in circumstances such that the petitioner no longer has a well-founded fear of persecution. This court therefore grants the petition for review with regard to the asylum claim and remands this matter to the BIA. The petitioner’s claim for withholding of removal and CAT relief are also remanded for reconsideration in light of her credible testimony.
No comments:
Post a Comment