Bhattarai v. Lynch, No. 12-74062 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, a native of Nepal, seeks review of the BIA's denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) based on past persecution and fear of future persecution. In this case, the BIA upheld the IJ's adverse credibility finding based on alleged inconsistencies between petitioner's testimony and certain supporting documents, and because petitioner failed to provide additional corroborative evidence, including testimony by his brother. The court held that the inconsistencies identified by the IJ and BIA were either non-existent or procedurally defective because petitioner was not given the chance to explain them. The court noted also that petitioner's in-court testimony was remarkably detailed, consistent with his written declaration, and plausible in light of the U.S. State Department report and other country conditions evidence in the record. The court further concluded that the BIA’s reliance on the absence of testimony from petitioner's brother was error under Ren v. Holder because the IJ did not give petitioner notice and an opportunity to present the corroborative testimony before denying his asylum application. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review and remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Immigration. The panel granted a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief on adverse credibility grounds. The panel held that the alleged inconsistencies the immigration judge identified were unsupported by the record or more properly deemed gaps in corroborative evidence, and that the immigration judge erred by failing to give petitioner notice and an opportunity to explain any perceived inconsistencies or provide additional corroborative evidence.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.