Shiming v. Mukasey

Full title: SHIMING LI, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 27, 2007

262 F. App'x 24 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-71434.

Submitted December 5, 2007^__.

__ The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed December 27, 2007.

Daniel K.Y. Fong, Law Offices of Daniel K.Y. Fong, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Deborah J. Groom, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A96-338-609.

Before: PREGERSON, NOONAN, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM^___

___ This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Shiming Li, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of removal, and for relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT'). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination. Chebckoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we grant the petition for review and remand.

Substantial evidence does not support the IJ's adverse credibility finding. Because the IJ's adverse credibility finding was based on improper speculation, a minor inconsistency not going to the heart of the petitioner's claim, and other findings that are not supported by the record, we grant the petitioner's petition for review. See Paramasamy v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 1047, 1050-51 (9th Cir. 2002) (rejecting boilerplate demeanor findings); Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that a minor inconsistency fails to support an adverse credibility finding); Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1071 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that speculation does not support an adverse credibility finding).

Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand to determine whether, accepting petitioner's testimony as credible, he is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED and REMANDED.