Babu 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BABU SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70108
Agency No. A088-210-313
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Babu 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
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8
FILED
JUL 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-70108 2
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
applying the new standards governing adverse credibility determinations created
by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010).
We grant the petition for review, and we remand.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s finding that it would be
implausible that a Sikh would be suspected of aiding Muslim terrorists because it
was based on improper speculation and conjecture. See Singh v. INS, 292 F.3d
1017, 1024-25 (9th Cir. 2002). Substantial evidence also does not support the
agency’s credibility finding based on discrepancies in Singh’s mother’s death
certificates because they are minor. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1085-86
(9th Cir. 2011) (“minor discrepancies in dates that . . . cannot be viewed as
attempts by the applicant to enhance his claims of persecution have no bearing on
credibility”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, substantial
evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See id. at 1089.
Accordingly, we grant the petition with respect to Singh’s asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims, and we remand, on an open record, for
further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S.
12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1096 (9th
Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

10-70108 3
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --