Singh

MEMORANDUM **

There is substantial evidence to support the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) finding that Singh was not credible and had therefore not borne his burden of proving persecution or fear of future persecution on account of one of the statutory grounds. See Ramos-Vasquez v. INS, 57 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir.1995); 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(42)(A). There were numerous discrepancies between Singh’s application and his testimony before the immigration judge, including ones involving the “heart of the asylum claim” such as details of his torture and purported narrow escape from India. De Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391 , 393-94 (9th Cir. 1997). Singh’s trustworthiness was further called into question by the fact he denied having ever been married and denied having previously attempted to immigrate to the United States despite documented evidence to the contrary. See Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir.1985) (ruling that when petitioner has demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty, there is no reason to give overall testimony weight). Although given an opportunity to explain many of these discrepancies, Singh offered no explanation or became evasive or…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the majority disposition because the reasons given by the BIA, upholding the IJ’s adverse credibility finding with respect to Singh, do not satisfy this court’s criteria for making such a finding.

The mere fact that a petitioner has answered some questions in a manner that the BIA concludes is evasive or dishonest does not justify an adverse credibility finding. Rather, the BIA must set forth “specific cogent reason[s], which are substantial and bear a legitimate nexus to the finding.” Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 993 (9th Cir.2000). We will uphold an adverse credibility finding only where alleged inconsistencies or omissions go to the “heart of the claim.” See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir.2001)(finding adverse credibility finding justified because discrepancies went to the “heart of the claim”); Valderrama v. INS, 260 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir.2001) (same); Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 940 (9th Cir.2000)(same). Also, we are limited in our review of the BIA’s decision to the reasons it gives for its decision. Ernesto Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646 , 658 n. 16 (9th Cir.2000) (“[T]his *792 court cannot affirm the BIA on a ground upon…