He Huang 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HE HUANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-75046
Agency No. A097-359-924
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.
He Huang, 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
JUL 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-75046 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d
1194, 1199 (9th Cir. 2004), and we grant the petition for review, and remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility
determination because the inconsistencies identified by the agency regarding how
Huang obtained his B-1 visa, whether his documents were mailed to him eight or
twelve months after his arrival in the United States, and whether the Chinese
doctor ordered two weeks of rest are minor and do not got to the heart of his claim
of religious persecution. See id. at 1201. Furthermore, lack of authentication of
Huang’s employment termination notice is an insufficient reason for deeming it
unreliable. See Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally,
because none of the agency’s adverse credibility findings is supported, Huang was
not required to provide corroboration. See Marcos v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1112,
1118 (9th Cir. 2005) (where an agency’s adverse credibility determination is
insufficiently supported, petitioner is not required to provide corroboration to
establish facts to which he testified).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, and remand for the agency to
consider Huang’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 --