Nelli Simonyan 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).
RA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NELLI SIMONYAN,
Petitioner - Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72713
Agency No. A075-687-459
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Nelli Simonyan, a native of the former Soviet Union and citizen of Armenia,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her
FILED
FEB 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

RA/Research 07-72713 2
application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Malhi v. INS 336 F.3d 989,
992 (9th Cir. 2003), and we grant the petition for review and remand.
The agency found Simonyan was not credible because her testimony was
inconsistent with her witness’s testimony with respect to her October 1998 arrest,
and because of discrepancies regarding the date she claimed the police arrested her.
Substantial evidence does not support these adverse credibility findings because
Simonyan was not given an opportunity to explain these discrepancies. See
Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091-93 (9th Cir. 2009).
Substantial evidence also does not support the BIA’s alternate conclusion
that a presumption of a well-founded fear was rebutted solely based on the remarks
of one witness that the Pentecostal church is now officially recognized by the
Armenian government. See Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 805 (9th Cir. 2004)
(BIA’s determination regarding changed circumstances must be sufficiently
individualized to rebut the presumption).
Accordingly, we remand Simonyan’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims on an open record. 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.

-- 2 of 2 --