Singh

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Amarjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed without opinion the decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) denying Petitioner’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s decision, we review the latter. Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir.2003). We review legal issues de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Harpinder Singh v. Ilchert, 63 F.3d 1501, 1506 (9th Cir.1995). The IJ made no adverse credibility finding, so Petitioner’s testimony must be taken as true. Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1137 (9th Cir.2004).

A. Claims for Asylum and Withholding of Removal

1. The IJ purported to distinguish Harpinder Singh from this case on the sole ground that Petitioner “did, in fact, assist or aid terrorists” whereas Harpinder Singh had been “falsely accused” of supporting the separatists. That purported distinction is not availing because Harpinder Singh also assisted or aided Sikh militant separatists. See Harpinder Singh, 63 F.3d at…

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent.

Although the record could be read as showing that the police repeatedly arrested and beat Singh because of his political opinion, there was also substantial evidence on the record as a whole for the contrary conclusion—that the police acted against Singh because they suspected him of a crime, aiding or hiding terrorists, rather than because of his political opinion. Singh admitted that he furnished assistance to Khalistan separatists and that the police accused him of sheltering them. Because there is evidence of a legitimate prosecutorial purpose, this case should be analyzed under Dinu v. Ashcroft, 1 rather than Harpinder Singh v. Ilchert 2 and Ratnam v. INS, 3 and the BIA’s decision should be affirmed.

. Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir.2004).

. Harpinder Singh v. Ilchert, 63 F.3d 1501 (9th Cir.1995).

. Ratnam v. INS, 154 F.3d 990 (9th Cir.1998).

. See Dinu, 372 F.3d at 1044-45 .