Bagri

MEMORANDUM **

Satwant Singh Bagri, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the summary affirmance by the Board of Im *630 migration Appeals (BIA) of the decision of an Immigration Judge (IJ), denying his petition for asylum and withholding of deportation. We deny the petition for review.

DISCUSSION

Bagri sought asylum and withholding of removal based on a claim of political persecution. For asylum, he was required to demonstrate he suffered past persecution or has a well-founded fear of future persecution. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.2006). Withholding of removal required him to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be persecuted if he returns to India. Id. at 1190 . The IJ denied relief based on Bagri’s demeanor and credibility. Because the BIA summarily affirmed, we review the IJ’s opinion as the final decision of the agency. Id. at 1184 .

We ordinarily give “special deference to a credibility determination that is based on demeanor.” See Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 685 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation omitted). The IJ did not rely, however, on “non-verbal communication,” such as a petitioner’s expression,…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that most of the IJ’s stated reasons for finding Bagri not credible were not supported by the record and were not sufficient for an adverse credibility finding. I do not agree, however, that the few remaining reasons the majority relies upon in upholding the adverse credibility finding are sufficient. Bagri did once give the date of his arrest and his departure from his village as 1995 rather than 1996, but corrected himself. See Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1166 (9th Cir.2000) (minor inconsistencies in dates cannot form basis for adverse credibility finding). There was not a serious discrepancy between his testimony and documentary evidence regarding his medical treatment. Bagri explained that he was taken to the hospital for a brief visit after his release, and the doctor’s letter did not clearly state that he had stayed in the hospital for an extended time. I therefore would conclude that the adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence, and I would grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA to consider Bagri’s application anew. See INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 ,…