Shergill

MEMORANDUM **

Mohinder Singh Shergill, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture (the “Convention”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence adverse credibility findings, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003), and claims of due process violations de novo, Hartooni v. INS, 21 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1994). We grant the petition for review in part, and deny it in part.

Substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because she did not identify inconsistencies that went to the heart of Shergill’s asylum claim, see Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1111-12 (9th Cir.2002) (recognizing that “inconsistent” means that two events are “contradictory” or “incompatible”), and did not give Shergill the opportunity to explain the alleged inconsistencies, see Guo v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1194, 1200 (9th Cir.2004). Shergill testified that Indian police arrested him once for giving money to…

dissenting.

Because I conclude that substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, I dissent.