Ding Ma v. Holder , 435 F. App'x 641 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 02 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DING MA, No. 07-75132
Petitioner, Agency No. A-096-070-514
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ding Ma, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d
1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008), and we grant the petition for review and remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. See Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[A]
concern that the affidavit is not as complete as might be desired cannot, without
more, properly serve as a basis for a finding of lack of credibility.”) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). Specifically, Ma’s omission from his declaration
of being kicked by policemen two or three times on his right calf is minor, see
Aguilera-Cota v. INS, 914 F.2d 1375, 1382 (9th Cir. 1990) (minor omissions
cannot support an adverse credibility finding), and his omission from his
declaration of being fired from his job is minor in light of his explanation that
verbal termination is routine and expected following arrest, see Smolniakova v.
Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1037, 1045 (9th Cir. 2005). Finally, the IJ’s finding that Ma
failed to provide witness corroboration of the letter concerning his church
attendance does not support an adverse credibility determination because Ma was
not required to provide additional corroboration. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217,
1227 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Where, as here, a petitioner provides some corroborative
evidence to strengthen his case, his failure to produce still more supporting
evidence should not be held against him.”).
2 07-75132
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, and remand for the agency to
consider Ma’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims, taking his
testimony as true. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1093-96 (9th Cir.
2009); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3 07-75132