Kaichun Shi v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAICHUN SHI,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72711
Agency No. A095-295-297
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Kaichun Shi, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming an immigration judge’s decision
denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JUL 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-72711 2
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100,
1105 (9th Cir. 2006), and we grant the petition for review, and remand.
The agency concluded Shi was not credible because her asylum application
stated that she had a trial pending against her, whereas she testified that there was
no court trial pending against her. This conclusion is not supported by substantial
evidence because Shi’s explanation established there was no inconsistency
between her asylum application and testimony. See Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d
1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2000). In addition, the inconsistency in Shi’s testimony
regarding the Zhong Gong headquarters is a minor inconsistency that does not go
to the heart of her claim. See Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 660
(9th Cir. 2003). Further, the omissions from her asylum declaration that police
used verbal profanities and their “fingers” during her second arrest are omissions
of detail. See Lopez-Reyes v. INS, 79 F.3d 908, 911 (9th Cir. 1996). Finally, the
agency’s finding that Shi gave varying accounts as to how she obtained her
passport is not supported by the record. See Bandari, 227 F.3d at 1167.
Accordingly, substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. See id. at 1165.
We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings to determine
whether, taking Shi’s testimony as true, she is eligible for asylum, withholding of

-- 2 of 3 --

07-72711 3
removal, or CAT relief. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th
Cir. 2009); INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --