Hundal

MEMORANDUM **

Baldeep Singh Hundal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . Reviewing for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), we grant in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. Hundal’s testimony contains only minor discrepancies that are insufficient to support an adverse credibility finding. Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 660 (9th Cir.2003). Similarly, the IJ’s general observation that Hundal lacked emotion when testifying does not justify the conclusion that Hundal was not credible. See Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 686 (9th Cir.2003) (a demeanor-based adverse credibility finding must “specifically and cogently” refer to the non-credible aspects of the applicant’s demeanor).

Substantial evidence also does not support the BIA’s determination that Hundal…