Adela Ortiz-Ortiz v. Jefferson Sessions, 698 F. App'x 868

Petitioner Adela Ortiz-Ortiz, a Guatemalan national, sought withholding of removal and CAT protection based on severe domestic violence and related threats by her ex-husband, Mario Alberto Divas.
At a reasonable-fear interview, Ortiz reported being shot at at a town fair (Mar. 19, 2013) and finding a young girl hanged after shopping; in IJ testimony she described being beaten and nearly killed by Divas outside a church that day and said the girl had been tied with wire and shot.
The BIA found Ortiz not credible due to these purported inconsistencies between her asylum-officer interview and IJ testimony, and denied her withholding and CAT claims.
Ortiz submitted corroborating evidence: declarations from friends/family, photos, a physician’s report documenting scars, and country materials about widespread domestic violence in Guatemala.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed only the BIA decision, construed Ortiz’s pro se BIA appeal liberally (finding exhaustion satisfied), and concluded the BIA’s adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence.
The court also found the IJ violated Ortiz’s due process by failing to question her about two prior violent incidents (Nov. 2011 dental injuries and Dec. 2012 rape/stabbing) that were listed in her application and relevant to her claims; the case was remanded on an open record for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adverse credibility based on inconsistencies	Ortiz: inconsistencies are minor, explainable (multiple events same day, wording/memory/translation errors), and contradicted by corroboration	Gov: inconsistencies between interview and hearing undermine credibility	Court: BIA’s adverse credibility determination not supported by substantial evidence given record as a whole and plausible explanations for differences
Exhaustion of issues on BIA appeal	Ortiz: pro se appeal should be liberally construed to include her claims	Gov: Ortiz failed to exhaust issues by not raising them in BIA notice of appeal	Court: Pro se status warranted liberal construction; claims exhausted
Due process — failure to elicit testimony on key incidents	Ortiz: IJ failed to ask about Nov. 2011 and Dec. 2012 incidents listed on I-589, depriving her of full and fair hearing	Gov: (implicitly) IJ’s questioning was adequate	Court: IJ’s failure to question about those incidents violated due process and was prejudicial; remand required
Scope of review — reliance on BIA vs IJ	Ortiz: BIA conducted its own review; appellate review should be confined to BIA decision	Gov: N/A	Court: Confined review to BIA decision because BIA did not adopt IJ’s opinion

Hosseini v. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 953 (9th Cir.) (review limited to BIA decision when BIA conducts its own review)
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir.) (liberal construction of pro se BIA appeals and exhaustion)
Abovian v. INS, 219 F.3d 972 (9th Cir.) (inconsistencies can arise from misunderstanding, mistake, or memory)
Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.) (treatment of minor inconsistencies in credibility analysis)
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.) (substantial-evidence standard for adverse credibility determinations)
Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825 (9th Cir.) (Fifth Amendment right to due process in removal proceedings)
Ramirez-Alejandre v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 365 (9th Cir.) (proceedings violate due process if applicant was prevented from reasonably presenting case)
Oshodi v. Holder, 729 F.3d 883 (9th Cir. en banc) (applicant must be examined under oath as to contents of application)
Jacinto v. INS, 208 F.3d 725 (9th Cir.) (applicant’s credible testimony of past persecution is central and can be dispositive)