Harpushinder 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARPUSHINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74228
Agency No. A096-155-992
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Harpushinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s decision
denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under
the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
FILED
NOV 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74228 2
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100,
1105 (9th Cir. 2006), and we grant the petition for review, and remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility
determination, because Singh did not omit from his asylum application that police
continued to look for him, see Zuh v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 504, 508 (9th Cir. 2008)
(finding no inconsistency in testimony based on a straightforward reading of the
record), and his failure to mention in his asylum application that police seized his
workshop after he left the country is a minor omission that does not go to the heart
of his claim, see Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (omissions must
go to the heart of petitioner’s claim to support an adverse credibility finding); see
also Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he mere omission of
details is insufficient to uphold an adverse credibility finding.”). Accordingly,
substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. See id. at 1165.
We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings to determine
whether, taking Singh’s testimony as true, he is eligible for asylum, withholding of
removal, or CAT relief. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th
Cir. 2009); INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --