Taiguang Jiang v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAIGUANG JIANG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73962
Agency No. A099-055-389
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted May 6, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: NOONAN, WARDLAW, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Taiguang Jiang, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming the
denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) by the immigration judge (“IJ”). Jiang
FILED
JUN 27 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 5 --

asserted past persecution and a fear of future persecution on account of his
Christian religion, but he was ultimately deemed not credible. The BIA adopted
and affirmed the IJ’s denial of relief on adverse credibility grounds. We grant the
petition for review, reverse the adverse credibility determination and deem Jiang’s
testimony credible, and remand for further proceedings.
The parties are familiar with the facts of this case. Jiang attested as follows:
Jiang was introduced to a house church service while in Singapore in 1993 and
became a Christian shortly thereafter. During a trip to Japan in 2004, Jiang
attended a local Korean church and, upon his return to China, resumed worshiping
at his house church. He and members of his church were handcuffed, arrested, and
interrogated, for allegedly participating in illegal activities. Police officers stripped
Jiang of his clothes, kicked him in the back and legs, and locked him in a cell
without any clothing. Jiang, confined to a freezing cold cell for two days, signed a
confession, but he was detained for an additional two weeks and fined 5,000 RBM.
Following his release, Jiang reported to work at the government-owned company
where he was employed. He was immediately fired due to his arrest. Jiang’s
activities were watched by a neighborhood committee, and he lost his freedom and
right to practice his religious beliefs.
2

-- 2 of 5 --

The IJ concluded that Jiang failed to present credible evidence sufficient to
support his burden of establishing past persecution. The IJ also determined that
Jiang did not establish a claim for withholding of removal. The IJ determined that
Jiang was ineligible for CAT protection because he did not establish that he would
be tortured by the Chinese government. On appeal, the BIA, citing Matter of
Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994), adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision,
and dismissed Jiang’s appeal.
We have jurisdiction to review a final order of the BIA pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. Where the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision with a citation to Matter of
Burbano and adds its own comments, we review the decisions of both the BIA and
the IJ. Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1239-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review the
relevant legal conclusions de novo, Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747
(9th Cir. 2009), and the IJ's factual findings and credibility determination for
substantial evidence, Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1085 (9th Cir. 2011); Lopez-
Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir. 2008). Because Jiang
applied for relief after May 11, 2005, we apply the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010).
3

-- 3 of 5 --

Under the REAL ID act, minor inconsistencies that have a bearing on a
petitioner’s veracity may constitute the basis for an adverse credibility
determination. Id. at 1044. However, we have reversed adverse credibility
determinations where inconsistencies or implausibilities cited by the IJ, to the
extent that they exist, are “manifestly trivial” and do not, in fact, have any bearing
on the petitioner’s veracity. See Ren, 648 F.3d at 1088-89. Such is the case here.
For example, any purported inconsistency in Jiang’s testimony concerning
travel restrictions stems from his effort to answer an ambiguous question
formulated by the IJ. A review of Jiang’s testimony demonstrates that he did not
make conflicting statements about the manner in which he received his termination
letter. While the termination letter indicated that Jiang and his employer “mutually
agreed” to end his employment, additional testimony about the circumstances
leading to Jiang’s termination supports his contention that he was fired, and that
the letter’s language was a formality consistent with his version of events.
Moreover, Jiang’s testimony did not contradict a written description of the offense
for which he was fined.
In short, the inconsistencies identified by the agency are either reconcilable
or manifestly trivial, and substantial evidence does not support the adverse
4

-- 4 of 5 --

credibility determination rendered in this case. Accordingly, we reverse the adverse
credibility determination and remand to the BIA for a redetermination of Jiang’s
eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REVERSED and
REMANDED
5

-- 5 of 5 --