Kumar

1. Because the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse credibility finding regarding the extent of Petitioner’s volunteer work at the YMCA is supported by substantial evidence, Petitioner’s challenge to denial of asylum and withholding of removal fails. This information goes to the heart of Kumar’s claim because his assertion of persecution revolved around his work for the YMCA. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that as long as one of the IJ’s identified grounds underlying an adverse credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the petitioner’s claims of persecution, we are bound to accept the adverse credibility finding); see also Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001) (recognizing that an inconsistency in the details of the events upon which asylum is based goes to the heart of the claim).

2. Alternatively, even if Kumar is deemed credible, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that Kumar failed to establish eligibility for asylum. The harm that Kumar suffered before coming to the United States does not rise to the level of persecution. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995)…

dissenting.

I dissent.

The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is not, in my view, supported by substantial evidence. Kumar’s statements during his asylum interview did not contradict his later testimony. As Kumar explained, he was never asked during his asylum interview how many total hours a month he worked at the YMCA. His responses during that interview, therefore, do not contradict his testimony at the hearing, in which Kumar said that he ran a monthly camp for the YMCA and also worked there every weekend, distributing medicine to villages.

Crediting Kumar’s testimony, the question then becomes whether the IJ properly determined that there was no past persecution and no well-founded fear of future persecution. First, it is not clear that the IJ ever reached a determination regarding past persecution. Second, if he did, his determination was clearly improper. Kumar was detained for nearly a week by the police, during which time he was frequently beaten. An earlier round of detention by members of the Shiv Sena, a radical Hindu group, left him with physical injuries severe enough to warrant hospitalization. Under our case law, treatment of this kind amounts to…