Micaela Talavera-Turja v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICAELA TALAVERA-TURJA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-72598
Agency No. A205-320-632
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 5, 2022
Portland, Oregon
Before: WATFORD, R. NELSON, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
Micaela Talavera-Turja petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of her application for withholding
of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We grant the
petition and remand to the agency for further proceedings.
The BIA’s decision addressed only the immigration judge’s determination
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
JUL 27 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
that Talavera-Turja was not a credible witness. The agency’s adverse credibility
determination rested primarily on an exchange that occurred toward the end of
Talavera-Turja’s testimony, when she mentioned that Geronimo, her persecutor in
Mexico, was her ex-husband. Up until that point in the proceedings, Talavera-
Turja had referred to Geronimo as the father of her daughter without specifying
that they were once married. When asked, she could not remember the date of her
marriage or when her marriage was legally terminated, although she did recall how
old she was when she got married.
This exchange, whether characterized as an inconsistency or an omission, is
insufficient to support the adverse credibility determination. Talavera-Turja
consistently referred to Geronimo as the father of her daughter and stated that they
had been in a relationship. Her clarification that she had once been married to
Geronimo is not inconsistent with those earlier statements. Further, Talavera-
Turja’s initial failure to mention her previous marriage to Geronimo is a “collateral
or ancillary omission” that does not suggest her claim was fabricated. Iman v.
Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1067–68 (9th Cir. 2020). Talavera-Turja’s testimony and
claim for relief were predicated on the abuse she suffered at the hands of
Geronimo, not the precise nature of her relationship with him. Her testimony
regarding that abuse was consistent with her asylum application, and she
mentioned that she was once married to Geronimo only when asked on re-direct

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
examination by her attorney. Under the totality of the circumstances, this limited
exchange does not meaningfully undermine her credibility. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (9th Cir. 2010).
The BIA also based its adverse credibility determination on what it
characterized as Talavera-Turja’s vague and nonspecific testimony regarding the
death of her cousin and threats made to her family. But Talavera-Turja was
describing incidents affecting third parties that she learned of second-hand, so the
lack of detail in her testimony on these points is “less probative of credibility.” Lai
v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 971, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2014).
Because neither of the grounds asserted by the BIA supports an adverse
credibility determination, we grant Talavera-Turja’s petition for review and
remand to the agency for further proceedings.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; CASE REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --