Yun Wang; Longfa Hong; Jiangtao Hong 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
YUN WANG; LONGFA HONG;
JIANGTAO HONG,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72106
Agency Nos. A076-373-974
A076-373-973
A076-373-975
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Yun Wang and her family, natives and citizens of China, petition for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from
an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for asylum and
withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-72106 2
for substantial evidence. Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008).
We grant the petition for review and remand.
The IJ determined Wang failed to establish extraordinary circumstances
excusing her untimely-filed asylum application because she did not file “within a
very short period of time after the expiration of her status.” This is an incorrect
application of 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a) (5)(iv) (extraordinary circumstances includes
maintenance of lawful status until a “reasonable period” before filing the asylum
application); see Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2008) (six-
month period is a “presumptive deadline” applied in the absence of any special
considerations); see also Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056-59 (9th Cir.
2009). Accordingly, we grant and remand Wang’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination. See Tekle, 533 F.3d at 1055-56. The inconsistency regarding
Wang’s age at the time of the merits hearing is minor and does not got to the heart
of her claim. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 2004). The IJ’s
omission finding is not supported because Wang provided a reasonable explanation
why this was a minor omission. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091-
92 (9th Cir. 2009) (rejecting inconsistency when petitioner offered an explanation,
and the agency did not address the explanation in a reasoned manner). Finally, the

-- 2 of 3 --

07-72106 3
possible inconsistency between Wang’s testimony regarding her date of departure
from China and the date on her airline ticket receipt was both minor and based on
impermissible speculation. See Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1071 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“speculation and conjecture cannot form the basis of an adverse credibility
finding”).
To the extent the BIA relied on the remainder of the IJ’s adverse credibility
findings, those findings are also not supported by substantial evidence because
they are based on minor inconsistencies or on impermissible speculation. See Li v.
Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for review and remand for the agency to
consider Wang’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, taking her testimony
as true. See Soto-Olarte, 555 F.3d at 1093-96; see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S.
12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --