NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 6 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TEJBEER SINGH, No. 19-70906 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-666-767 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 6, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, NGUYEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Tejbeer Singh, a native and citizen of India, challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. He also challenges the BIA’s denial of his motion to * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). remand for consideration of eligibility for voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition in part and deny it in part. 1. The government’s failure to include the time and place of proceedings in Singh’s putative Notice to Appear (NTA) did not deprive the IJ of jurisdiction over Singh’s removal proceedings. See Karingithi v. Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019). Therefore, we deny Singh’s petition to the extent he challenges the agency’s jurisdiction. 2. Singh sufficiently exhausted his challenge to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because his BIA brief put the BIA on notice of this challenge. See Bare v. Barr, 975 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2020). Yet the BIA failed to discuss any of the reasons underpinning the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. We therefore remand with instructions to consider whether, based upon the specific inconsistencies and implausibilities the IJ identified, the adverse credibility finding was clearly erroneous. See Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[W]e do not review those parts of the IJ’s adverse credibility finding that the BIA did not identify as ‘most significant’ and did not otherwise mention.”). 3. Singh sufficiently raised his challenge to the IJ’s past persecution finding, see Bare, 975 F.3d at 960, yet the BIA failed to address it. Because the BIA is “not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner,” we remand for the BIA to 2 consider Singh’s challenge to the IJ’s past persecution finding. Sagaydak v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005). 4. Under Posos-Sanchez v. Garland, Singh’s period of continuous physical presence for purposes of post-conclusion voluntary departure did not end when the government served the putative NTA or when the immigration court later mailed Singh a hearing notice. 3 F.4th 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[A] noncitizen builds up physical-presence time under § 1229c(b)(1)(A) from the moment he enters the United States until the moment he receives a single document that provides him with all the information Congress listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)—i.e., a § …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals