T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S UR I ND E R S I NG H, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J R ., A tto rn e y G e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 72572 A ge nc y N o. A 072- 404- 154 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r d o f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d A ugus t9, 2010 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: G R A B E R , C A L L A H A N , an d B E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S ur i nde rS i ngh, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of I ndi a , pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ s ( “ B I A ” ) or de rtha tde ni e d hi s appl i c a t i on f or as yl um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and rel i ef un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture (“ C A T ”) . T he Im m i grat i on Judg e ( “ IJ ”) foun d thatS i ng h w as no tcr edi bl e; deni ed hi s app l i ca t i on for a sy l um , w i thh ol di ng of re m ov al , and C A T re l i ef ; and o rder ed 

# FI LED AU G 20 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

hi m r e m ove d. T he B I A a f f i rm e d. W e gr a ntthe pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w a nd r e m a nd b e c a u s e s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e d o e s n o t s u p p o r t th e I J ’s a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f in d in g . Se e L i v . A s h c r o

ft , 37 8 F . 3d 95 9, 96 2 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( ho l di ng thatw e r evi ew advers e c re di bi l i ty f

i nd i ng s f or subst ant i al evi dence). T o s uppor tthe a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng, the I J c i t e d S i ngh’ s va gue a nd u n resp o n si v e t est i m o n y w i th resp ectt o h i s p o l i t i cal b el i efs, h i s rel i g i o u s b el i efs, an d th e b eat i n g s i n fl i ct ed o n h i m b y th e p o l i ce. A n IJ can b ase an ad v erse c r e d ib ility f

in d in g o n v a g u e o ru n r e s p o n s iv e te s tim o n y . S i n g h - Ka u rv . I NS , 183 F . 3d 11 47 , 11 53 (9th C i r. 19 99 ). H ow ever , the IJm ustprov i de an al i en w i th an op po rtun i ty t o exp l ai n v ague or un re spon si ve t es t i m on y bef ore the IJre l i es on that te s tim o n y a s ar e a s o n f

o rf in d in g th e a lie n n o t c r e d ib le . Se e G u o v . A s h c r o ft , 361 F .3 d 1 1 9 4 , 1 2 0 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ; S in g h v . A s h c r o ft , 30 1 F . 3d 11 09 , 11 14 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ). H ere, S i n g h ’ s v ag u e an d u n resp o n si v e t est i m o n y can n o tsu p p o rtan ad v erse c r e di bi l i ty f

i ndi ng be c a us e S i ngh a ns w e r e d a l l the que s t i ons pos e d t o hi m , a nd nei ther the go vernm entno r the IJas ked S i ng h t o p rovi de a m ore det ai l ed ex p l an at i o n o f an y o f h i s t est i m o n y. T he I J a l s o c i t e d s e ve r a l c l a i m e d i nc ons i s t e nc i e s i n S i ngh’ s t e s t i m ony : the da t e of hi s f our th a rr e s t , the s i gni f

i c a nc e of y e l l ow he a ddr e s s e s , the a m ountof pol i t i c a l a c t i vi ty i n w hi c h he e nga ge d a f t e r1996, a nd w he the rhe w a s am e m be rof3

the vi l l a ge c ounc i l i n 1999. S i ngh t e s t i f i e d tha thi s f

our th a rr e s tw a s i n 1999, but hi s appl i c a t i on l i s t e d the da t e of hi s f our th a rr e s ta s 2000. T hi s m i nor in c o n s is te n c y is in s u f

f ic ie n t to s u p p o r t a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f in d in g . Se e V

i lor i oLo p ezv . I NS , 852 F . 2d 1137, 1142 ( 9th C i r . 1988) ( “ M i nori nc ons i s t e nc i e s i n the r e c or d s uc h a s di s c r e pa nc i e s i n da t e s w hi c h r e ve a l nothi ng abouta n a s y l um ap p lic a n t’s f

e a rf o rh is s a f e ty a r e n o t a n a d e q u a te b a s is f o ra n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f i ndi ng. ” ) . T he r e i s no e vi de nc e i n the r e c or d tha ts uppor t s the f i ndi ng tha tS i ngh t est i fi ed i n co n si st en t l y reg ard i n g th e o th er cl ai m ed i n co n si st en ci es. T he IJfoun d S i ng h’ s c l ai m of pers ec ut i on “ i ncon si st entw i th the coun try c ondi t i ons ” be c a us e “ the S t a t e D e pa r tm e ntC ountry R e por tc l e a r l y s how s tha tthe cond i t i on s i n the P un

j ab re gi on for S i kh s have i m prov ed dram at i ca l l y. ” H ow ever , a S t at e D ep artm en trep o rtth at“ d escri b [es] a g en eral co n d i t i o n o f p eace in so ci ety” i s i nsuffi ci entt o sup po rtan IJ ’ s a dv er se cr edi bi l i ty f i nd i ng w hen an al i en t es t i fi es th a t h e h a s e x p e r ie n c e d p a s t p e r s e c u tio n . Sh a h v . I NS , 2 2 0 F .3 d 1 0 6 2 , 1 0 6 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . H e r e , th e I J e rr o n e o u s ly r e lie d o n ag e n e r a l c o n c lu s io n s ta te d in aS ta te D e pa r tm e ntr e por tt o s uppor ti t s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng. T he I J a l s o f

ound tha tS i ngh’ s t e s t i m ony abouthi s i nabi l i ty t o pr ovi de i dent i fy i ng do cum ent s w as no tcr edi bl e. T he IJst at ed: “ thi s C ou rti s noteven sure w ho the r e s ponde nti s . W he n the C our ta s ke d hi m aboutbi r th c e r t i f i c a t e s a nd w hy4

h e w a s n o t ab le to o b ta in o n e , h e c o u ld n o t a r tic u la te ar e a s o n w h y a n d h is r e s pons e i n a ny e ve ntw a s s i m pl y . . . notbe l i e vabl e . . . norc oul d he e xpl a i n w hy he w a s notabl e t o obt a i n a ny othe ri de nt i f i c a t i on doc um e nt s . ” B utS i ngh d id e xpl a i n w hy he di d notha ve abi r th c e r t i f i c a t e : he w a s r e qui r e d t o gi ve i tt o the I ndi a n gove rnm e ntw he n he appl i e d f orapa s s por ta nd the gove rnm e ntdi d not re turn h i s bi rth cert i fi ca t e. T o the ext entthe IJdi sbel i eved S i ng h’ s t es t i m on y that he w a s r e qui r e d t o s ubm i thi s bi r th c e r t i f i c a t e t o obt a i n apa s s por ta nd tha tthe gove rnm e ntdi d notr e turn hi s bi r th c e r t i f i c a t e , the I J e nga ge d i n s pe c ul a t i on a nd c o n je c tu r e , w h ic h c a n n o t s u p p o r t a n a d v e r s e c r e d ib ility f in d in g . See Kau r v . A s h c r o ft , 379 F . 3d 876, 887 ( 9th C i r . 2004) ( “ S pe c ul a t i on a nd c onj e c tur e c a nnot f orm the ba s i s of

a n a dve r s e c r e di bi l i ty f i ndi ng, w hi c h m us ti ns t e a d be ba s e d on subst ant i al evi dence. ” ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed)) . S i ng h al so t es t i fi ed that he c oul d notge tane w bi r th c e r t i f i c a t e . T he I J di d nota s k S i ngh t o e xpl a i n w hy he w as un abl e t o g eta new bi rth cert i fi ca t e, and the re cord cont ai ns no evi dence re gardi ng the process for obt ai ni ng a new bi rth cert i fi ca t e i n Ind i a. T hu s, the IJ l ack ed an y b asi s i n ev i d en ce t o d i sb el i ev e S i n g h ’ s t est i m o n y. F i na l l y , the B I A ’ s f

i ndi ng tha t“ c ondi t i ons i n the P unj ab r e gi on f orS i khs h av e i m p ro v ed d ram at i cal l y” i s i n su ffi ci en tt o reb u tth e p resu m p t i o n th atp ast pers ec ut i on w i l l re sul ti n future pers ec ut i on because the B IA di d n otun dert ake a n5

i ndi v i dual i

z e d a n a ly s is o f

h o w c h a n g e d c o n d itio n s w o u ld a f f e c t S in g h ’s s itu a tio n . Se e G o n z a lez - H

e r n a n dezv . A s h c r o

ft , 33 6 F . 3d 99 5, 10 00 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). A n al i en w ho ha s s uf

f e r e d pa s tpe r s e c ut i on “ i s pr e s um e d t o ha ve aw e l l - f ounde d f e a rof future pers ec ut i on . ” I

d. a t997 ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt e d) . T he gove rnm e nt“ c a n r e butthi s pr e s um pt i on by s how i ng, by apr e ponde r a nc e of the evi dence, thatthe cond i t i on s i n the appl i ca nt ’ s hom e c ou ntryhave changed such thathe or she no l on ger has a w el l -f ou nd ed fe arof pers ec ut i on . ” I d. (i nt ernal quot a t i on m a rks a nd br a c ke t s om i tt e d) . T he e vi de nc e on w hi c h the gove rnm e nt r e l i e s “ m us tbe t a i l or e d t o the appl i c a nt : I nf orm a t i on aboutge ne r a l c ha nge s i n the coun tryi s notsuff

i ci ent . ” I d. ( c ita tio n a n din te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ) . H er e, the B IA re l i ed on i nform at i on abou tgeneral changes i n Ind i a. T hatevi dence i s i nsuffi ci entt o rebutthe pres um pt i on thatpastpers ec ut i on w i l l re sul ti n future p e r s e c u tio n . Se e i d. W e gra ntthe pet i t i on for r evi ew and rem and t o the B IA on an op en re cord f o rf u r th e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is d is p o s itio n . See Sot o-O larte v . H older , 5 5 5 F .3 d 1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 3

– 9 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ; see a l so IN S v. O rla n do V

en tu ra , 537 U . S . 12 , 16 –1 8 (20 02 ) ( per c uri am ). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.