Kaur

dissenting.

*55 Because I believe the BIA’s determination is entitled to greater deference than that afforded by the court, and because there was substantial evidence to support the BIA’s adverse credibility determination, I respectfully dissent.

An appellate court reviews a determination that an applicant has not established eligibility for asylum under the substantial-evidence standard of review. Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir.2000). “All the substantial evidence standard requires is that the BIA’s conclusion, based on the evidence presented, be substantially reasonable.” Diaz-Escobar v. INS, 782 F.2d 1488, 1493 (9th Cir.1986). “We must affirm if the BIA’s determination is ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence,’ and we reverse only if ‘the evidence [Kaur] presented was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.’” Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481, 483-84 , 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B) (“[Administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator…

MEMORANDUM ***

Rajinder Kaur petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that affirmed the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We grant the petition and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.

The IJ denied Kaur’s application because he determined that Kaur was not a credible witness. 1 The credibility issues raised by the IJ, however, did not “go to the heart” of Kaur’s asylum and withholding claim — that she fled her native country because she was arrested, beaten, raped, and tortured by local police authorities.

The IJ found that Kaur was evasive during the hearing. General accusations of unresponsiveness, however, are not enough to support an adverse credibility finding. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir.2002).

The IJ also raised concerns about Kaur’s testimony regarding various dates, such as the date of her matriculation exam, *54 the date that she left home and went to her uncle’s house, and the date when she fled from India. The noted inconsistencies were minor and were often corrected by Kaur…