Sodhi v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 26, 2025
• Docket: 24-3548
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NIKHIL SODHI; et al., No. 24-3548 Agency Nos. Petitioners, A240-259-446 A240-495-082 v.

PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 18, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Nikhil Sodhi and his minor daughter, natives and citizens of India, petition

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing

their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application

for asylum and Sodhi’s applications for withholding of removal and protection

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under the Convention Against Torture. 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 under 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 found no clear error in five factual findings the IJ relied on in

support of an adverse credibility determination. Substantial evidence does not

support four of these findings. Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s

determinations that Sodhi’s testimony was inconsistent with his declaration as to

how many times he was punched, that he omitted his medical treatment from his

declaration, that Sodhi’s father omitted Sodhi’s medical treatment from his

affidavit, and that Sodhi’s testimony was inconsistent with his asylum application

as to his employment, where the agency failed to provide specific and cogent

reasons for rejecting Sodhi’s explanations for the perceived inconsistencies and

omissions. See Munyuh v. Garland, 11 F.4th 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[T]he

agency has a duty to consider a petitioner’s explanation for a perceived

inconsistency[, and i]f that explanation is reasonable and plausible, then the agency

must provide a specific and cogent reason for rejecting it.” (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted)); see also Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1154

(9th Cir. 2021) (alleged inconsistency not, in fact, inconsistent).

2 24-3548 The remaining finding involves a discrepancy between Sodhi’s testimony

and his father’s affidavit. Because we cannot be confident that the BIA would have

upheld the adverse credibility determination based on this third-party omission

alone, see Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2020) (omissions are

generally less probative of credibility), we grant the petition and remand for the

BIA to reconsider Sodhi’s credibility and for any necessary further proceedings

consistent with this decision, see Kumar, 18 F.4th at 1156 (remand appropriate for

BIA to determine whether remaining factors support determination); see also Alam

v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (single-factor rule for

adverse credibility determinations overruled).

The government must bear the costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

3 24-3548