Singh

MEMORANDUM ***

Sukhwinder Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of deportation, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture. The immigration judge (“IJ”) denied Singh’s application solely on the basis of Singh’s lack of credibility. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a), as amended by the Illegal Immigrant Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Because we conclude that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial evidence, we grant the petition and remand to the BIA for further proceedings.

The IJ found that Singh knew little about the Sikh religion. This finding was not supported by the record because Singh’s answers to questions posed to him were responsive. Additionally, the IJ improperly engaged in speculation and conjecture about the validity of Singh’s beliefs. “[I]t is error to rest a decision denying asylum on speculation and conjecture.” Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir.2000).

The IJ also raised concerns about Singh’s testimony regarding the date of his first arrest. This discrepancy was minor and was…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent from the court’s opinion for the same reasons I have set forth elsewhere. See Kaur v. Ashcroft, No. 02-72520, 2004 WL 187459 (9th Cir. Jan. 28, 2004) (Beam, J., dissenting) (mem.) (unpublished). Specifically, under the highly deferential substantial-evidence standard of review, the record here does not compel a conclusion by a reasonable factfinder that Singh was a credible witness. Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir.2002); 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B).

The IJ based its adverse credibility finding on a variety of discrepancies in Singh’s testimony: Singh could not accurately convey the timing of his previous arrests, his account of the circumstances of his arrests changed upon further questioning, his knowledge of the Sikh religion was weak even though his asylum application sought refuge based in part on his religion, his asylum application failed to mention many of the horribles he described in his testimony, and his testimony was inconsistent with his physician’s written account of Singh’s treatment. When considered in isolation, each may be insufficient to support the adverse credibility determination. But the deferential standard…