Kaur

MEMORANDUM **

Manjinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order. That order summarily affirmed an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Kaur’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review for substantial evidence both an agency’s adverse credibility determination and a fact-based determination that a petitioner has failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir.2002); Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 861-62 (9th Cir.2001). Employing that *627 standard of review, we grant Kaur’s petition for review and remand for findings concerning a well-founded fear of future persecution.

I.

Substantial evidence does not support any of the IJ’s enumerated reasons for making an adverse credibility determination concerning Kaur.

First, contrary to the IJ’s finding, Kaur never testified inconsistently about the extent of her brother’s political activities. While Kaur testified that her brother had been arrested twice, and a letter she produced from the All India Sikh Student…

dissenting:

The majority’s decision is dependent on rejecting the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Under the appropriate standard of review, I believe the IJ made sufficient findings to support the credibility determination. Accordingly, I dissent.

We review an adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence. This standard is meant to be “extremely deferential.” Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1431 (9th Cir.1995). In fact, we “must uphold the [IJ’s] findings unless the evidence presented would compel a reasonable finder of fact to reach a contrary result.” Singhr-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1999). If an IJ cites multiple grounds *630 in support of an adverse credibility determination and “one of the identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [a] claim ... we are bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.” Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir.2003). Our case law also requires that we give “ ‘special deference’ to a credibility determination that is based on demeanor.” Singh-Kaur, 183 F.3d at 1151 . An appropriate application of these deferential standards leads to the conclusion that the petition…