Singh
Singh v. Holder
Opinion
Lead Opinion
ORDER
In response to the petition for rehearing, the panel has amended its memorandum disposition filed on February 17, 2008. Accordingly, the pending petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are moot. *656 Based on the amended disposition, either party may petition for panel rehearing and/or en banc rehearing pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 35 and 40.
AMENDED MEMORANDUM **
Surjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a final decision issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) protection. We deny the petition for review.
DISCUSSION
To establish his eligibility for asylum, Singh was required to prove he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173, 1178 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc). Withholding of removal required him to demonstrate it is more likely than not that he would be subjected to persecution if he returns to India. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir.2007). For CAT relief, Singh had to establish it is more likely than not…
Concurring Opinion
Skopil, J.
concurring:
The IJ in this case identified a number of inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony. Our original disposition cited four — when Singh joined his political party, the level of his involvement in that party, the circumstances that led to his second arrest, and the nature of the torture after that arrest. We concluded these are substantial inconsistencies that go to the heart of Singh’s claim of political persecution and therefore support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.
In our amended disposition, we have abandoned that conclusion and now rely solely on Singh’s inconsistent explanations regarding who organized a funeral that he attended and the political affiliation of the deceased. While we clearly may differ on the materiality of any cited discrepancy and even our respective readings of the record, I question whether that ineonsis-tency alone should support an adverse credibility finding. Nonetheless, because I believe that the four inconsistencies cited in our original disposition do support such a finding, I concur in our decision to deny Singh’s petition for review.