Hayk Barseghyan v. Merrick Garland, 39 F.4th 1138

Background:

Hayk Barseghyan, an Armenian national and member of the opposition People’s Party (HZhk), alleges he was beaten and tortured by Armenian security forces after protesting alleged election fraud and displaying anti-government drawings in January 2013.
He was attacked at a 2008 protest, later displayed drawings at a bazaar on January 19, 2013, and says he was detained, beaten, drugged, forced to strip, and taken to a hospital after a later interrogation; a neighbor submitted a supporting statement and a hospital record exists.
Barseghyan fled Armenia, entered the U.S. from Mexico without valid documents, conceded removability, and applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief based on an adverse credibility finding, citing several inconsistencies between Barseghyan’s written declaration and oral testimony and the weakness/lack of corroborating documentation.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, adding one inconsistency the IJ had not relied on and characterizing the IJ’s documentation finding under a corroboration statute the IJ did not apply.
The Ninth Circuit granted the petition for review, holding three of four relied-upon inconsistencies are unsupported by the record, finding the IJ ignored corroborating evidence, and remanding for the BIA to determine whether the remaining inconsistency suffices under the totality of the circumstances.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence under the REAL ID Act totality standard	Barseghyan: most alleged inconsistencies are not supported; IJ ignored corroborating evidence; totality does not support adverse finding	Gov: IJ and BIA identified inconsistencies and weak corroboration that justify adverse credibility	Court: Grant petition — most inconsistencies unsupported; remand to BIA to reassess under totality with open record
Whether testimony about how he arrived at the hospital was inconsistent	Barseghyan: declaration didn’t state who transported him; testimony consistently said police took him; no inconsistency	Gov: Cross-exam suggested he said he went himself	Held: No inconsistency; cannot support adverse credibility
Whether first arrest was at home or the police station (Jan 23)	Barseghyan: described two encounters (arrest at home then called back a week later); any confusion was a lapse in memory but plausible	Gov: Testimony conflicts with declaration, showing inconsistency	Held: This inconsistency is supported by the record and remains for BIA to weigh
Whether IJ/BIA properly relied on lack/weakness of corroboration and whether BIA misapplied corroboration statute	Barseghyan: IJ ignored hospital record and neighbor statement; BIA mischaracterized IJ as making an independent corroboration finding under §1158(b)(1)(B)(ii)	Gov: IJ reasonably discounted documentation and relied on lack of corroboration	Held: IJ ignored corroborating documents; BIA misapplied and affirmed a finding IJ did not make; cannot sustain adverse credibility on that basis without remand

Key Cases Cited

Mamouzian v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2004) (government beatings at political demonstration supported past persecution)
Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2007) (persecution finding sustained where petitioner beaten by government officials)
Kaur v. Wilkinson, 986 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2021) (bodily integrity violations are hallmarks of persecution)
Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148 (9th Cir. 2021) (credibility reviewed under REAL ID Act totality; no bright-line on number of inconsistencies)
Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (REAL ID Act displaced "heart of the claim" test; totality standard governs)
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (IJ must give specific, cogent reasons and point to record instances for adverse credibility)
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (applicant must be given opportunity to explain inconsistencies; reasonable explanations must be credited or specifically rejected)
Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ must notify applicant and specify required corroboration before finding lack of corroboration defeats claim)
Chouchkov v. I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2000) (agency may not assume government actors operate with seamless efficiency to create inconsistencies)
Zumel v. Lynch, 803 F.3d 463 (9th Cir. 2015) (BIA may not make independent factual findings beyond the IJ’s or rely on its own reinterpretation of the record)