FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BHUPINDER KUMAR, No. 17-73412 Petitioner, Agency No. v. A202-080-566 MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, OPINION Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 15, 2020 * Submission withdrawn March 2, 2021 Resubmitted November 22, 2021 ** San Francisco, California Filed November 30, 2021 * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** The panel withdrew this case from submission on March 2, 2021, pending the court’s decision in Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). The panel now unanimously concludes that this case remains suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 KUMAR V. GARLAND Before: M. Margaret McKeown and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges, and Eric N. Vitaliano, *** District Judge. Opinion by Judge McKeown SUMMARY **** Immigration Granting Bhupinder Kumar’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding the denial of Kumar’s application for asylum and related relief on adverse credibility grounds, the panel concluded that the bulk of the credibility findings in this case were infirm, and remanded. Kumar, who was born in India and belonged to a caste considered to be of lower social standing, joined the Bahujan Samaj Party (“BSP”) because of its opposition to the caste system. He asserted that as a result of his work for the BSP, he was beaten four times by the police and members of opposing parties. An immigration judge denied his application for asylum and related relief, and the BIA dismissed Kumar’s appeal. *** The Honorable Eric N. Vitaliano, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. **** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. KUMAR V. GARLAND 3 The panel explained that under the REAL ID Act, IJs must base credibility determinations on “the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). However, even after the REAL ID Act, this court followed its “single factor rule,” under which the court would affirm an adverse credibility finding so long as one of the grounds on which that finding was based was supported by substantial evidence and went to the heart of the claim. In Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc), the court held that the REAL ID Act abrogated the single factor rule and that the court must affirm credibility findings only when they are supported by the totality of circumstances. Applying this standard, the panel considered the four factors that the BIA relied on in upholding the adverse credibility determination here. First, as to the finding that Kumar provided inconsistent statements, the panel concluded that two of the three alleged testimonial inconsistencies were in fact not inconsistent at all. Second, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals