Raj Kumar v. Gonzales

Raj Kumar (Raj), an Indian citizen and native of the northern Indian state of Jam-mu and Kashmir, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order affirming, without an opinion, the denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He also petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. We conclude that the Immigration Judge (IJ) erred in finding (1) that Raj was not credible, (2) that Raj had not established a nexus between his past persecution and at least one of the five protected grounds enumerated in 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(A), and (3) that Raj had failed to demonstrate a reasonable fear of future persecution.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

According to Raj’s sworn declaration, in the early morning of January 6, 1998, police officers stopped him as he walked to his neighborhood temple in Jammu and Kashmir and asked him whether he knew the whereabouts of Syed Ali Shah, whom the police had identified as a suspected terrorist and Muslim separatist. Raj pointed the officers in the direction of Shah’s house but initially refused to accompany them there, in part because…

dissenting in part:

My colleagues grumble that an immigration judge shouldn’t pretend to be a “handwriting expert” or a “forensic laboratory.” Maj. at 1025. But a circuit judge shouldn’t pretend to be an immigration judge. This is yet another tiresome “example of the nitpicking we engage in as part of a systematic effort to dismantle the reasons immigration judges give for their decisions.” Abovian v. INS, 257 F.3d 971, 980 (9th Cir.2001) (Kozinski, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (listing other examples).

1. After hearing the testimony of Raj Kumar and his brother Rajinder, the immigration judge (IJ) found as follows:

Based on this finding of immigration fraud and other inconsistencies in Raj’s testimony and evidence, the IJ made an adverse credibility determination and, not believing Raj’s story, denied his claim for asylum.

Both Congress and the Supreme Court have instructed that an adverse credibility finding is “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B); see INS v. Elias-Zacari-as, 502 U.S. 478 , 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Our role is not to substitute…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RAJ KUMAR, 

Petitioner, No. 03-70191 v.  Agency No. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney A75-579-218 General, Respondent. 

RAJ KUMAR, 

Petitioner, No. 03-73449 v.  Agency No.

A75-579-218

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent.  On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted July 12, 2005—Pasadena, California

Filed January 23, 2006

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, Alex Kozinski, and Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Reinhardt; Dissent by Judge Kozinski COUNSEL

Garish Sarin, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, Cali- fornia, for the petitioner.

Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wendt- land, Assistant Director; John S. Hogan, Office of Immigra- tion Litigation, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. 834 KUMAR v. GONZALES

OPINION

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

Raj Kumar (Raj), an Indian citizen and native of the north- ern Indian state…