Jianrui Lin v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIANRUI LIN,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 12-73016
Agency No. A088-457-571
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 13, 2017**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Jianrui Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and
FILED
NOV 02 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition
for review and remand.
The BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility determination on the basis of
inconsistencies between Lin’s testimony and supporting documentation regarding
the date his wife was forcibly sterilized, and the total amount he was fined after his
children’s unauthorized births. Lin contends the BIA erred by failing to consider
his arguments that the IJ did not adequately address his explanations for those
inconsistencies. We agree. See Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th
Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA [is] not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”);
see also Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir. 2004) (“An adverse
credibility finding is improper when an IJ fails to address a petitioner’s explanation
for a discrepancy or inconsistency.”) (superseded by statute on other grounds).
We grant the petition for review and remand Lin’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims on an open record for further proceedings consistent with this
disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); Soto-
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2009). In light of this
disposition, we do not address Lin’s remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --