Ibrahima Diallo v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IBRAHIMA DIALLO,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 18-70974
Agency No. A209-939-181
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Ibrahima Diallo, a native and citizen of Guinea, 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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAR 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-70974
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act. Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014).
We grant the petition for review and we remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility
determination because it was based on a trivial inconsistency and an omission from
a credible fear interview that is unsupported by the record. See Ren v. Holder, 648
F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility finding not supported under
the totality of circumstances). Further, the IJ failed to address Diallo’s explanation
as to an omission from his asylum application. See Zhi v. Holder, 751 F.3d 1088,
1092-93 (9th Cir. 2014) (IJ must consider and address all plausible and reasonable
explanations).
Thus, we grant the petition for review and remand Diallo’s asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the agency for determination of the
merits. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); see also Soto-
Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --