Juan Ai v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JUAN AI,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-72165
Agency No. A205-328-589
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2016**
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Juan Ai, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 31 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 14-72165
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act. Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014).
We grant the petition for review and remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on the finding that Ai offered implausible testimony as to the
circumstances surrounding her visit to the doctor in May 2001. See Ren v.
Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1086-89 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency mischaracterized the
testimony). Substantial evidence also does not support the agency’s determination
based on Ai’s failure to have her contraceptive device removed in the United
States. See id. at 1087-88 (agency’s findings were speculative). Further,
substantial evidence does not support the agency’s determination based on the
purported inconsistency between Ai’s testimony and her medical document as to
the forced nature of her abortion. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th
Cir. 2011) (“If [petitioner] offers a ‘reasonable and plausible explanation’ for the
apparent discrepancy, the IJ must provide a specific and cogent reason for rejecting
it.”).
Thus, we grant the petition for review, deem Ai credible, and remand Ai’s

-- 2 of 3 --

3 14-72165
asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims to the agency for further
proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-
18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --