Goraya

MEMORANDUM *

Deljeet Singh Goraya, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and request for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). This court has jurisdiction over final orders of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(1). We review questions of law de novo, Hernandez-Gil v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 803 , 804 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007), and factual findings for substantial evidence, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). “[W]e will not defer to BIA decisions that conflict with circuit precedent.” Melkonian v. Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003). We grant Goraya’s petition for review.

The IJ declared that “the Court has no idea when respondent last entered the United States,” and therefore denied Gora-ya’s asylum application as untimely because he had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he had filed an application within one year of entry. The IJ further determined that Goraya was not *248 credible, citing “substantial and material areas of his testimony which were…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

The immigration judge found Goraya not credible, in part based on documents he presented to the court, and in part based on inconsistencies in his testimony regarding his father’s location from 1999 to 2001. The record does not compel the conclusion that the documents are authentic or that Goraya’s testimony was consistent, so I would deny the petition for review.

Goraya presented various identification documents, including a driver’s license with the word “signtature” misspelled and the wrong birthdate and home address, from his parents in India. But they were mailed to New York instead of Seattle. Goraya was given a chance to explain this and could not. Nor could Goraya tell the immigration judge to whom in New York the documents were sent. The judge concluded “[t]his is not a reasonable foundation which enhanced the Court’s confidence in either the credibility of the respondent or the authenticity of the documents.” The IJ’s conclusion is reasonable; the typographical errors and inconsistencies in the documents, and the unexplained New York connection, support the inference that they are not what they purport to be, and the record does not…