Paramjit Singh v. Holder

dissenting:

In reviewing the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) ruling affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) credibility finding, we “independently evaluate each ground cited by the BIA” and decide whether there is substantial evidence to support the finding. Chen v. I.N.S., 266 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.2001), overruled on the other grounds by INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12 , 123 S.Ct. 353 , 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002). Although this standard is deferential, “[t]he BIA must have a legitimate articulable basis to question the petitioner’s credibility, and must offer a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.” Shah v. I.N.S., 220 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotations omitted).

Here, the basis for the adverse credibility finding was 1) Singh’s testimony regarding the date of his second arrest in relation *23 to the 1984 Golden Temple attack and 2) the fact that a letter submitted by Singh’s wife did not mention his second arrest. Neither of these grounds provides substantial evidence to support an adverse credibility finding.

First, there is no inconsistency arising from Singh’s testimony about his second arrest. Although Singh admittedly described his arrest as…

MEMORANDUM **

Paramjit Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Singh contends that the BIA’s adverse credibility determination and the IFs finding that he failed to establish persecution on a protected ground were not based on substantial evidence. We deny the petition.

We review for substantial evidence a finding of adverse credibility. Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1253 (9th Cir.2003). An adverse credibility determination will be upheld when the decision is based on “specific and cogent reasons,” such as inconsistencies in the petitioner’s testimony that “go to the heart of the asylum claim.” Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir.2010). We must uphold the IFs and BIA’s findings unless the evidence presented would compel a reasonable finder of fact to reach a contrary result. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.2007).

The inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony regarding his arrests go to the heart of his…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PARAMJIT SINGH, No. 06-74678

Petitioner, Agency No. A071-947-948

v.

MEMORANDUM *

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Argued and Submitted November 2, 2010 San Francisco, California

Before: PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, District Judge.**

Paramjit Singh ('Singh'), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review

of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ('BIA') affirming an

Immigration Judge's ('IJ') decision to deny Singh's application for asylum,

withholding of deportation, and relief under the Convention Against Torture

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New Yorµ, sitting by designation.…