Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mayala v. Holder
Citation: 318 F. App'x 535Docket: No. 05-70472
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; March 10, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Manu Mayala, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, petitions for review after the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the Immigration Judge's (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court possesses jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and grants the petition for review, remanding for further proceedings. Mayala contends that the BIA erroneously affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. The court reviews such findings for substantial evidence, highlighting that minor inconsistencies and omissions related to unimportant facts cannot substantiate an adverse credibility determination. The IJ cited inconsistencies between Mayala’s declaration and his testimony regarding the imprisonment of his family members after their arrests in 1996 and 2000. However, these inconsistencies were deemed immaterial to his claim and not indicative of an attempt to enhance his persecution claims. Additionally, the IJ's conclusion that Mayala's testimony was "unbelievable" due to a perceived inconsistency concerning the reasons for his 1996 arrest lacked a legitimate basis. The BIA must afford a petitioner the opportunity to explain perceived inconsistencies leading to asylum denials, which Mayala was not given for his 1996 arrest. The IJ failed to clarify this aspect during cross-examination. The court found that Mayala's testimony and declaration consistently supported his claims of future persecution and torture as a Banyamulenge Tutsi. The government acknowledged that neither the IJ nor the BIA evaluated the merits of Mayala’s claims, contingent upon his credibility. The decision of the BIA is reversed, and the case is remanded for a substantive review of Mayala’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. The court concludes that substantial evidence does not support the adverse credibility finding and notes that the IJ's reliance on a contradiction regarding the suspicion of Mayala's father further undermines the credibility determination.