Singh

dissenting:

The immigration judge (“IJ”) who presided over Nirmal Singh’s removal hearing concluded that he was not credible based on a number of alleged inconsistencies and other issues with his testimony and the documentary evidence. Mr. Singh has argued to this court that the issues identified by the IJ reflect a serious misapprehension of the record. The record bears out his claim with respect to several of the *948 problems identified by the IJ. Indeed, the clarity of the record on many of these points is so persuasive that the Government — as the advocate charged with defending the IJ’s opinion before this court— opened its argument with the acknowledgment that “[m]uch of what the petitioner says about the adverse credibility finding has substance.” Oral Argument (9th Cir. June 13, 2011). Nevertheless, my colleagues reject Mr. Singh’s challenge, and in doing so, they place more stock in the credibility determination of the IJ than even its own advocate could. In my view, the Government’s concession, along with the serious problems with some of the IJ’s cited bases for the credibility determination that go unmentioned in the court’s opinion, should make us wary of relying on…

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Nirmal Singh asks us to review an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) returning him to India. We review de novo the BIA’s legal conclusions, and we review its factual findings for substantial evidence. Lopez-Birrueta v. Holder, 633 F.3d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir.2011). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

1. Because our disposition in this case turns on the adverse credibility determination made by the immigration judge (“IJ”) and affirmed by the BIA, we begin with that issue. This case predates the REAL ID Act of 2005, so we apply pre-REAL ID Act rules. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 , 1087 n. 2 (9th Cir.2011). Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s findings of fact, which include the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, we review the IJ’s decision for substantial evidence. Id. The IJ’s credibility determination is “ ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B)). We therefore must uphold the IJ’s credibility determination “so long as one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 03 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NIRMAL SINGH, No. 07-73429

Petitioner, Agency No. A079-578-051

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 June 13, 2011 San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, RIPPLE,** and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Nirmal Singh asks us to review an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals ("BIA") returning him to India. We review de novo the

BIA’s legal conclusions, and we review its factual findings for substantial

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Kenneth F. Ripple, Senior Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. evidence. Lopez-Birrueta v. Holder, 633 F.3d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 2011). We

dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for…