Gill

MEMORANDUM *

Surjit Singh Gill petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of Immigration Appeals of his appeal from the order of removal entered by the Immigration Judge following her denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.

*316 When the BIA’s conclusion is guided by the IJ’s decision, as it is here, our review includes both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1095 , 1108 n. 18 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc).

“Adverse credibility findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard and ‘will be upheld unless the evidence compels a contrary result.’ ” Chawla v. Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir.2007)). Some of the reasons the IJ gave in support of Gill’s adverse credibility finding cannot withstand scrutiny, but “we must uphold the IJ’s adverse credibility determination so long as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.2011). It was reasonable for the agency to find Gill incredible based on his inconsistent statements about the number of people that were…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in all of the majority’s disposition, except for its treatment and denial of Gill’s claim under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), from which I dissent.

The majority concedes that “[t]he BIA did not explicitly address [Gill’s] CAT claim, as it should have.” Yet, it goes on to reject the claim on its merits for reasons the BIA itself did not rely on. We may affirm the BIA only on grounds set forth in the opinion under review. See Recinos De Leon v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d *317 1185, 1189 (9th Cir.2005) (citing SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196-97 , 67 S.Ct. 1760 , 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947)). The majority’s reliance on grounds not articulated in either the BIA’s decision or in that portion of the Immigration Judge’s decision concerning the CAT claim is a clear violation of the venerable Chenery principle.

The BIA is not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner and, in disposing of a CAT claim, must provide a statement of its reasons for denying relief that is adequate for this Court to conduct its review. Antonyan v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1250, 1256 (9th Cir.2011); Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir.2005).…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 01 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

SURJIT SINGH GILL, No. 08-70445

Petitioner, Agency No. A099-357-639

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 July 19, 2012 San Francisco, California

Before: TASHIMA, CLIFTON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Surjit Singh Gill petitions for review of the dismissal by the Board of

Immigration Appeals of his appeal from the order of removal entered by the

Immigration Judge following her denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and

relief under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. When the BIA’s conclusion is guided by the IJ’s decision, as it is here, our

review includes both the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions. Delgado v. Holder, 648 F.3d

1095, 1108 n.18 (9th Cir. 2011) (en…