Singh

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Jagjit Singh (“Jagjit”) challenges the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) relief by the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), which was summarily affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The IJ based his decision on (1) questions regarding Jagjit’s credibility, (2) a finding that Jagjit provided insufficient evidence that his mistreatment was due to his political opinion, and (3) a finding that Jagjit was not mistreated “by or at the acquiescence of a public official acting in an official capacity.”

In the absence of an explicit adverse credibility finding, the applicant’s factual contentions are assumed to be true. Kataria v. INS, 232 F.3d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir.2000). Vague comments about the applicant’s credibility do not constitute a credibility finding; the finding must be clearly stated. Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134 , 1137—38 (9th Cir.2004). Here, the IJ made only two statements related to credibility. The first found Jagjit’s documentation, but not his testimony, “not credible.” In the second, the IJ stated, “Such stories are not consistent with the modus operandi of the Indian…