Unpublished Disposition, 900 F.2d 263 (9th Cir. 1990)

Marina SERVELLON-RAMIREZ, Petitioner,v.IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 89-70041.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 15, 1990.Decided April 18, 1990.

Before WIGGINS and NOONAN, Circuit Judges, and A. WALLACE TASHIMA, District Judge.^* 

MEMORANDUM^** 

Marina Servellon-Ramirez is a native and citizen of El Salvador. Servellon entered the United States without inspection. She has admitted deportability and has applied for asylum and withholding of deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a) and Sec. 1253(h).

FACTS

Servellon lived for 32 years in San Salvador with her extended family. Sometime in 1982 or 1983 leftist guerrillas came to Servellon's home and kidnapped Servellon's cousin. He has not been found and Ms. Servellon presumes him dead. About one month after the kidnapping, three armed guerrillas again came to the house and dragged her uncle and his son away. The guerrillas first beat the two men and then shot them half a block from Servellon's house. The guerrillas also threatened Servellon stating, in her words, that they "were going to come back for the rest of us."

Servellon stated in her asylum application that she left El Salvador in October, 1983 but at the hearing she testified she had departed in March 1982. Servellon also indicated in the asylum application that she had no children but then testified at the hearing that she has three children.

The immigration judge focusing on the inconsistent testimony regarding Servellon's departure date, her failure to indicate she has three children in El Salvador, and her demeanor, determined she was not sufficiently trustworthy to conclude that she has met the burden of proof for asylum and withholding of deportation. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the immigration judge. It stated that even if Servellon's testimony were to be believed, she had failed to establish a well-founded fear of persecution because she had not shown the threat of harm exists countrywide.

ANALYSIS

The immigration judge noted the inconsistencies and held that Servellon's testimony was not sufficiently trustworthy to show a well-founded fear of persecution. The immigration judge, however, relied upon information that reveals nothing about whether Servellon is an honest person or whether or not she feared for her safety in El Salvador. He did not explain why she would dishonestly testify about her departure dates, nor did he explain what about her demeanor made her seem untrustworthy. Damaize-Job v. INS, 787 F.2d 1332, 1337-338 (9th Cir. 1986) (trier of fact should offer specific, cogent reasons for disbelief). He failed to indicate why contradictory remarks concerning minor details show that every statement the petitioner made should be disregarded. See Garcia-Ramos v. INS, 775 F.2d 1370, 1374-5 (9th Cir. 1985) (inconsistencies which are not central to the alien's claim do not necessarily render an alien's testimony incredible); Canjura-Flores v. INS, 784 F.2d 885, 888 (9th Cir. 1986) (inconsistencies which are neither relevant not probative must be disregarded). Servellon's inconsistent testimony could easily be indicative of her failure to fully understand the questions put to her at the hearing because of the language barrier. Moreover, the asylum application was in English, so that she did not have the capability to complete it herself but had to rely on her lawyer. The discrepancies could be a result of her lawyer's inattentiveness not Servellon's untruthfulness.

Neither the BIA nor the immigration judge noted any contradictions concerning Servellon's testimony that one of her cousins was abducted, her uncle and another cousin were murdered, and she was threatened. Nor do any such discrepancies exist in the record. Servellon has shown the leftist guerrillas are determined to continue persecuting her and her family for their connections to the El Salvadoran government. The guerrillas stated they would return for the surviving members of the family. Servellon has shown that she has a well-founded fear of persecution and that it is more likely that not the guerrillas will continue to persecute her.

Because the Immigration Judge made improper credibility findings requiring a reversal, we need not reach the issue of whether the threat of harm to petitioner must exist countrywide.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.