Qiaoli Zhong 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
QIAOLI ZHONG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-70745
Agency No. A095-181-283
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Qiaoli Zhong, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

05-70745 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d
1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we grant the petition for review, and remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. See Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2000). The
inconsistencies as to whether the police officers who beat Zhong were in
plainclothes, and the discrepancies between Zhong’s testimony and the hospital
report regarding bruises on his forehead, are minor discrepancies in relation to
Zhong’s otherwise detailed, consistent testimony of the beating, and his
documentation of other more serious injuries. See id. at 1166-67 (minor
discrepancies, in light of otherwise consistent testimony, could not form the basis
for an adverse credibility determination).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, and remand for the agency to
consider Zhong’s claims for relief, 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.

-- 2 of 2 --