Singh

Because the adverse credibility determination of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) against Petitioner Seetal Singh (“Singh”) is not supported by substantial evidence, I would grant the petition for review.

Singh testified that he joined the All India Sikh Student Federation (“AISSF”) and was subsequently arrested and beaten on six different occasions due to his affiliation. The government offered not a shred of evidence to contradict Singh’s testimony in this regard. Singh did display some confusion or lack of knowledge about the political process and the purpose of certain rallies he attended, leading the IJ to disbelieve Singh’s testimony. But this confusion or lack of knowledge simply does not go to the heart of Singh’s asylum claim, *647 which involved detailed descriptions of his detentions, beatings, and interrogations at the hands of the Indian police following AISSF activities. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir.2002). Also, the IJ engages in pure and improper speculation to conclude that Singh could not have been persecuted for being a member of AISSF simply because Singh’s depth of knowledge about the organization was limited. See Lopez-Reyes v. INS, 79 F.3d…

MEMORANDUM **

Seetal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding Singh’s testimony of past persecution on account of his political opinion, religion, and particular social group not credible. We review the IJ’s adverse credibility determinations under the substantial evidence standard, He v. Ashcroft, 328 F.3d 593, 595 (9th Cir.2003), and affirm her denial of Singh’s application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). The record would not compel any reasonable adjudicator to conclude that the IJ’s adverse credibility findings concerning Singh were erroneous. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B) (2000); see also INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478 , 482 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 , 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992) (interpreting repealed 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4)).

Although certain of the IJ’s findings— Singh’s knowledge of the voting age in India, the alleged inconsistency in the number of occasions on which Singh was arrested, his knowledge of the purpose of the Sikh holiday Baisakhi, and his family’s…