Opinion
No. 04-73616.
Argued and Submitted February 8, 2008 Pasadena, California.
October 14, 2008.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A075-760-712.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Hong Ji, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals that denied his claims for asylum and withholding of removal. The parties are familiar with facts of the proceedings, so we repeat them here only as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we grant Ji's petition.
When "the BIA conducts an independent review of the IJ's findings," we review "the BIA's decision and not that of the IJ." Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 2000). We therefore review the decision of the BIA.
The BIA did not make an explicit adverse credibility determination. Instead, it simply concluded that the evidence submitted was insufficient to substantiate Ji's claim of persecution. It is "well settled that we must accept an applicant's testimony as true in the absence of an explicit adverse credibility finding." Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). Therefore, we accept Ji's testimony as true.
In the absence of an explicit adverse credibility finding, "the BIA may not require independent corroborative evidence from an asylum applicant who testifies credibly in support of his application." Id. Therefore, where a petitioner's testimony is deemed credible, "the BIA err[s] by requiring [the petitioner] to produce corroborating evidence." Id. at 1114. Here, the BIA erroneously required Ji to provide additional evidence, beyond his own testimony, to corroborate his claim that he was persecuted on account of his union activity. We therefore grant Ji's petition and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this disposition.
PETITION GRANTED.