NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TEJBEER SINGH,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 19

- 70906 Agency No. A215

- 666

- 767

MEMORANDUM *

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 B oard of Immigrati on 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). 

# FILED

OCT 6 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

remand for consid eration 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. T he 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

. S ee 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 t his challenge

. See
Bare v. Barr , 975 F.3d 952, 960 (9th Cir. 2020). Yet t he BIA failed to discuss any

o f 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 e rroneous. 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 ,

se e 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 to3

consider Singh’s challe nge to the IJ’s past persecution finding. Sag a ydak 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 Stat es 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 § 1229(a) NTA.”) (emphasis added)

. We therefore remand the BIA’s denial of Singh’s
motion to remand so that the BIA can r econsider Singh’s eligibility for voluntary departure under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(1)(A).
5. Singh argues that because the government failed to se r ve him with an NTA that complied with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) , his proceedings should be terminated. Niz

Chavez v. Garland , 141 S. Ct. 1474 (2021) , which was decided after the BIA
issued their decision in Singh’s case, may be relevant to this question. We
therefore remand for the BIA to consider in the fi rst instance wh at remedy, if any, is appropriate for the government’s failure to issue an NTA that complie s with the

statute

. See INS v. Orlando Ventura , 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002) (describing the ordinary remand rule).4

PETITION GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART
. 1

1 The motion for a stay of removal [Dkt. No. 6] is granted. Singh’s removal is stayed pen ding a decision by the BIA

. E ach party shall bear its own costs.