NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 8 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMANPREET SINGH, No. 18-72835 Petitioner, Agency No. A209-156-986 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. ROSEN, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted October 5, 2020 Portland, Oregon Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON,** District Judge. Dissent by Judge RAWLINSON Amanpreet Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. The only issue * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation. we must consider is whether the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we review findings of fact for substantial evidence and questions of law de novo. See Madrigal v. Holder, 716 F.3d 499, 503 (9th Cir. 2013). “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ decision and also adds its own reasoning, we review the decision of the BIA and those parts of the IJ’s decision upon which it relies.” Duran- Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1027-28 (9th Cir. 2019). We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings. The IJ found Singh not credible for three reasons, all of which were affirmed by the BIA. None of them, however, are supported by substantial evidence. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that an IJ must consider the totality of the circumstances and “provide ‘specific and cogent reasons’ in support of an adverse credibility determination.”). First, the IJ found a discrepancy between Singh’s testimony, during which he described having been beaten by police, and a summary of his prior credible fear interview, which mentioned imprisonment and threats from police, but not a beating. The omissions from Singh’s credible fear interview were likely the result of imprecise questioning by the asylum officer. Singh’s interview answers were responsive to the questions that the interviewer asked; he testified that he had been beaten by the opposition parties, stated at his credible fear interview that the police 2 were members of those parties, and was only asked at his credible fear interview whether he had been harmed by police “[a]side from the Badal and BJP party members.” Furthermore, as we have recognized, “[i]t is well established that the mere omission of details is insufficient to uphold an adverse credibility finding.” Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, the IJ found it suspicious that Singh obtained a passport several months before he was ever beaten. Singh, however, made no representation that he intended to leave the country ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals