Singh
Singh v. Ashcroft
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Lakhvir Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003), and we grant the petition for review.
Singh’s confusion over the date that a family photograph, in which Singh himself was not pictured, was taken, led the IJ to conclude that Singh’s father was still alive in India at a time after Singh testified that his father had been “disappeared” by the police. This inference is not supported by the record. Because conjecture cannot substitute for substantial evidence, it cannot support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See Lopez-Reyes v. INS, 79 F.3d 908, 912 (9th Cir.1996).
Additionally, Singh initially testified that his birth certificate, which he provided, was the same one he had seen when in India. When it was pointed out that the registration date was after Singh was already in the United States, he explained…
Dissenting Opinion
Bybee, J.
I respectfully dissent. Under the substantial evidence standard, we must reverse only if no reasonable factfinder could have reached the decision the IJ reached on the record in this case. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 481 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992). A reasonable factfinder could have disbelieved Singh’s testimony, as the IJ did here. In particular, a reasonable factfinder could have concluded that Singh’s inconsistent testimony concerning the family photos Singh submitted raised doubts about his credibility. Based on the inconsistencies, a reasonable factfinder could question whether Singh’s father was in fact alive after the date Singh claimed his father disappeared. This discrepancy would have gone to the heart of Singh’s *255 asylum claim because it calls into question whether Singh had a legitimate basis to fear persecution.
I would deny the petition for review.