JASWINDER SINGH and BALJIT KAUR v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASWINDER SINGH and BALJIT
KAUR,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70933
Agency Nos. A089-127-479
A089-127-480
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 6, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: GOULD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, District Judge. **
Petitioners Jaswinder Singh and Baljit Kaur petition for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of Singh’s application for asylum and
withholding of removal under sections 208 and 241 (b)(3) of the Immigration and
FILED
JAN 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Larry A. Burns, District Judge for the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1231 (b)(3).1 We review the BIA’s factual
findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.
Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). We review questions of
law de novo. Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir. 2009).
The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Singh’s applications on the grounds
that Singh: (1) was not credible, and (2) failed to produce documentary evidence
showing that he was a member of the Shiromini Akali Dal Amritsar political party.
We conclude that the adverse credibility finding was not supported by substantial
evidence and, therefore, grant the petition.
The IJ offered a number of reasons for finding Singh not credible. The BIA,
however, affirmed the IJ’s credibility finding on the basis of only three of the IJ’s
reasons. Specifically, the BIA found that Singh was not credible because: (1)
Singh’s testimony regarding his and his uncle’s, Teja Singh (“Teja”), arrest was
internally inconsistent and inconsistent with his asylum application; (2) Singh
testified that he and Teja were released on February 5, 2001 and that Teja died on
this date, but Singh also testified that he was not released for eleven days after he
was arrested on January 26, 2001, which Singh admitted would place his release
1 Singh does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his application for protection
under the Convention Against Torture.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

date on February 6, 2001; and (3) Singh failed to provide a credible explanation for
his inability to obtain medical records documenting his treatment. In determining
whether the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by substantial evidence,
we focus on the three reasons relied upon by the BIA. See Tekle, 533 F.3d at 1051.
We conclude that the BIA’s affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding
is not supported by substantial evidence because the IJ failed to afford Singh notice
of, and an opportunity to explain, the discrepancies in his testimony. See
Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 2009). Moreover, the alleged
inconsistency regarding the February date was minor and not, when considered in
the totality of the circumstances, sufficient to support an adverse credibility
finding. Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1085–86 (9th Cir. 2011); Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010); Quan v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 883, 887
(9th Cir. 2005). We, therefore, grant the petition and remand this case to the BIA.
On remand, the agency is free to reevaluate whether Singh is credible. See
Soto-Olarte, 555 F.3d at 1094–96.
PETITION GRANTED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --