Tarlochan Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
PR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TARLOCHAN SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70713
Agency No. A098-155-030
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Tarlochan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

PR/Research 07-70713 2
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Soto-Olarte v. Holder,
555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny in part and grant in part the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Singh failed to
establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured upon return to India. See El
Himri v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 932, 938 (9th Cir. 2004).
In the notice to appear, the government alleged Singh’s entry date, and
Singh admitted to this date. Therefore, Singh’s entry date was undisputed and he
established his asylum application was not time-barred. See Hakopian v. Mukasey,
551 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir. 2008) (entry date is undisputed where government
alleges entry date and petitioner admits government’s allegation).
The IJ first denied Singh’s claims on the basis of an adverse credibility
determination. The findings are not supported. Any inconsistencies regarding
Singh’s entry into Canada are incidental to his claim of persecution. See Akinmade
v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1999). The IJ’s findings related to Singh’s
photographs documenting the scars on his back and his Indian election commission
card are based on minor discrepancies, and Singh provided reasonable explanations
for any inconsistencies. See Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir.

-- 2 of 4 --

PR/Research 07-70713 3
1998) (“[I]nconsistencies of less than substantial importance for which a plausible
explanation is offered” cannot serve as bases for negative credibility finding).
Further, Singh’s omission of details in his testimony, which were included in his
written application regarding his 1997 arrest and the May 2002 protest, does not
support an adverse credibility finding, see Singh v. Gonzales, 403 F.3d 1081, 1085
(9th Cir. 2005), and Singh’s testimony was consistent with his declaration
regarding the mistreatment he received during his 1989 arrest, see Paramasamy v.
Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 1047, 1052-54 (9th Cir. 2002). Finally, Singh produced certain
corroborating documents, and his failure to produce additional newspaper articles
does not support an adverse credibility finding. See Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217,
1227 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Where, as here, a petitioner provides some corroborative
evidence to strengthen his case, his failure to produce still more supporting
evidence should not be held against him.”). Thus, substantial evidence does not
support the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Bandari v. INS, 227
F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir. 2000).
The IJ made an alternative finding that Singh’s 1989 and 1997 arrests did
not rise to the level of persecution. However, the IJ did not consider whether
Singh’s 2000 and 2002 arrests rose to the level of persecution, nor did he explicitly
consider whether the harm Singh experienced was on account of a protected

-- 3 of 4 --

PR/Research 07-70713 4
ground. We therefore grant the petition and remand for further proceedings to
determine whether, taking Singh’s testimony as true, he is eligible for asylum or
withholding of removal. See Soto-Olarte, 555 F.3d at 1095-96; see also INS v.
Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;
REMANDED.

-- 4 of 4 --