Case ID: f-appx_550/html/0516-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Baljinder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. Harnek Singh, Petitioner, v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 08-73781, 09-70600.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Dec. 4, 2013.
    Filed Dec. 26, 2013.
    Hardeep Singh Rai, Indus Law Group LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Oil, Siu P. Wong, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Offiee of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TROTT, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

In this consolidated appeal, husband and wife Harnek Singh (Singh) and Baljinder Kaur (Kaur) each petition for review of a final order of removal of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

With regard to Singh’s petition, the Government has acknowledged that the BIA failed to consider Singh’s challenge to the immigration judge’s (IJ) finding of adverse credibility. In light of this concession, we grant Singh’s petition in part and remand to the BIA for full consideration of Singh’s challenge to the adverse-credibility finding and of his eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. We do not reach the merits of Singh’s claim for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

With regard to Kaur’s petition, the Government has conceded that the finding of adverse credibility is not supported by the record. Accordingly, we grant Kaur’s petition and remand to the BIA for plenary consideration of Kaur’s claims, including her due process claim, accepting Kaur’s testimony as credible.

Singh’s petition for review is GRANTED IN PART; REMANDED.

Kaur’s petition for review is GRANTED; REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.