Mulugeta G. Geberu v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MULUGETA G. GEBERU,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73788
Agency No. A095-763-557
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Mulugeta G. Geberu, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
MAR 20 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-73788 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for review and remand.
The agency’s findings that Geberu omitted from his asylum application and
declaration that he suspected his brother was imprisoned or killed by the Ethiopian
government and that his testimony was inconsistent with a letter he had in his
possession from the leadership of his political party are not supported by
substantial evidence. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011)
(analyzing claim under the Real ID Act’s standard, and concluding that substantial
evidence did not support the adverse credibility determination). Accordingly, we
grant Geberu’s petition for review and, deeming Geberu’s testimony as credible,
remand Geberu’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims for further
proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-
18 (2002) (per curiam); Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1094-96 (9th Cir.
2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED. REMANDED.

-- 2 of 3 --

09-73788 3

-- 3 of 3 --