Raj Kumar v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Raj Kumar, Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General

444 F.3d 1043 Raj KUMAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent. Raj Kumar, Petitioner, Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 03-70191. No. 03-73449. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 12, 2005. Filed January 23, 2006. Amended April 13, 2006. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Garish Sarin, Law Offices of Garish Sarin, Los Angeles, CA, for the petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Linda S. Wendtland, Assistant Director; John S. Hogan, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for the respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Before STEPHEN REINHARDT, ALEX KOZINSKI, and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges. ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION AND AMENDED DISSENT ORDER 1 The majority opinion filed January 23, 2006, slip op. 829, and appearing at 435 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir.2006), is hereby amended as follows: Delete the section beginning "The IJ's finding that Ram's death certificate was a forgery . . ." and ending "There can be no doubt that Raj's due process rights were violated here. 2" at slip op. 841. 2 Judge Kozinski's dissent…

dissenting in part:

My colleagues grumble that an immigration judge shouldn’t pretend to be a “handwriting expert” or a “forensic laboratory.” Maj. at 1050. 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-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 481 & n.l, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). Our role is not to substitute our…

ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION AND AMENDED DISSENT

ORDER

The majority opinion filed January 23, 2006, slip op. 829, and appearing at 435 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir.2006), is hereby amended as follows: Delete the section beginning *1047 “The IJ’s finding that Ram’s death certificate was a forgery ...” and ending “There can be no doubt that Raj’s due process rights were violated here. 2” at slip op. 841.

Judge Kozinski’s dissent is amended as follows: (1) Delete the section beginning “4. Finally, not content merely with finding ...” at slip op. 860 and ending “... but the sufficiency of the process Raj received is not dependent on a favorable result.” at slip op. 862; (2) change “5. The larger problem” appearing at slip op. 862, to “4. The larger problem”; and (3) delete “Having trouble arguing with a straight face that the applicant’s lie doesn’t go to the heart of his claim? No need to fret; just announce a due process violation. See maj. at 841.” at slip op. 863.

No petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc has been filed, and none will be entertained.

OPINION

Raj Kumar (Raj), an Indian citizen and native of the northern Indian state of Jam-mu and Kashmir, petitions for review of the…