N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KAR AM JIT SINGH; SUKHB IR KAUR ; AB HAY JEET SINGH, Pe titione rs, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H,* Attorne y Ge ne ra l, Re sponde nt. No. 12-71323 Age n c y Nos. A89-299-575 A89-299-576 A89-299-577 M EM O R ANDUM * *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 13, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : R E INHARDT, TASHIM A, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s . Kara m jit Singh; his wife , Sukhbir Ka ur; a nd the ir son, Abha

y Je e t Singh 1 , native s a n d c i tiz e ns of India , se e k re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ 

# F IL ED SEP 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* Lore tta

E. Ly nc h is substitute d for he r pre d e c e s sor, Eric H. Holde r, Jr., a s Attorne y

Ge ne ra l of the Unite d State s, pursua nt to Fe d. R . App. P. 43(c )(2). ** This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. 1 The latte r two a

re de rivative pe titione rs to Ka ra m j it Singh.(“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm ing a n Im m i gration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of Singh’ s a pplic a tion for a s y lum , withholding of rem ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie wfa c tua l findings for substa ntia l e v ide nc e , Zhi v . Holde r , 751 F.3d 1088, 1091 (9th C ir. 2014). Substa ntia l e vide nc e doe s not support the B IA’ s and IJ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility de te rm inations. W e the re fore grant the pe tition for re vie w. Singh te s tifie d tha

t he wa s a rre s te d thre e tim e s in India be c a u s e of his m e m b e rship in the

Kha lra M ission C om

m itte e , a hum an rights orga

niz a tion tha

t a dvoc a te d a

se pa ra te Sikh na

tion of Kha l ista

n . The B IA re

j e c te d the IJ’ s re lia

nc e on Pe t itione r’ s de m e anor a s a ba sis for the a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion, but a c c e pte d five of the IJ’ s c re dibility re a sons for de ny ing Pe titione r’ s a pplic a tions. W e a d dre ss e a c h ground be low. 1. Whe the r Pe titione r wa s hung upside down during his first a

rre st. Eve n the g ove rnm e nt a g re e s tha t this portion of the

re c ord is rife with tra

nsla tion diffic u ltie s. It is c le ar that a ny inc onsiste nc y

in Pe titione r’ s a

nswe rs we re due to transla tion diffic ultie s. W

he n those diffic ultie s we re c l e are d up, Pe titione r’ s answe rs we re a c c e pta

ble . 2. Whe the r Pe titione r’ s son wa s pre se nt a t his se c ond a

rre s t. W he n a ske d -2-whe the r his son wa s pre se nt a t his June 14, 2006, a

rre st, Pe titione r answe re d in the a ffirm a tive . Whe n re m inde d , howe ve r, tha t his son wa s not born until July 8, he c ha nge d his a

nswe r. Wh a t is them a te ria lity of whe the r his infa

nt son wa s or wa s not pre se nt? What

diffe re nc e doe s it m ake tha t his son wa s born be fore or a fe w we e ks a fte r his se c ond a

rre st? The que stion is trivia l. 3. The tim e of Pe titione r’ s first a nd third a rre st. Pe titione r te stifie d tha t his first a rre st oc c urre d in the m orning, but sta t e d in his a sy lum

de c l ara tion tha

t he wa s arre ste d in the e ve ning. Simila rly , he te stifie d tha

t his third a

rre st oc c urre d in the e ve ning, but his de c la

ra tion sta te s tha t it ha ppe n e d at noon. Hec o rre c te d both answe rs tha

t he gave on c ross-e xam ination. Do mista ke s in re c o unting the de ta ils of his thre e arre sts m ake any diffe re nc e ? W e have pre v iously re c ogniz e d “ that vic t im s of a

buse ofte n c onfuse the de ta ils of pa rtic u la r inc ide nts, inc l uding thetim e or date s of pa

rtic ula r a ssa u l ts a nd whic h spe c ific a c tions oc c urre d on whic h spe c ific oc c a sion.” Re n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079, 1085-86 (9th C ir. 2011) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). 4. Whe the r Pe titione r’ s m othe r c an sign he r nam e . Pe titione r te stifie d tha t his m othe r wa s illite rate and c ould not sign he r nam e . He c ha

nge d his te stim ony whe n c onfronte d with a

n a ffidavit (whic h Pe titione r introduc e d) signe d by his m othe r. It would bea

rare oc c a sion whe n a

house wife and m othe r in rura l India -3-would be c a l le d upon to sign a ny doc um e nt, a

nd it m ay be tha t Pe titione r ne ve r sa w his m othe r sign a

nything. No one

c onte sts tha

t she ’ s illite rate . What

purpose would Pe titione r have to lie a bout this subje c t? In fa c t, wha t is its re le va

nc e ? Any inc o nsiste nc y

is trivia l. 5. The hospita l re c ords. The B IA vie we d the hospita l re c ords a s suspic ious be c a use it c onside re d the date in the “ Date ” bloc k at the he a d of the re c ord to be the d a te the le tte rs we re writte n. This da te pre c e de s Pe titione r’ s tre atm e nt da te s; thus, thesuspic ion: Unde r this inte rpre tation it would a ppe ar that the le tte rs we re writte n be fore the tre a tm e nt took pla c e . B ut the re is a nothe r, e qua lly

pla usible inte rpre tation: Tha

t “ Date ” is the date of Pe t itione r’ s a d m ission to the

hospita l. This wa s Pe titione r’ s te stim ony . The re is no inc o nsiste nc y . The inc onsiste n c ie s the B IA and IJ re lie d on a re e i the r non-e xiste nt or trivia l, a nd thus do not c onstitute

substa ntia l e vide nc e in support of the B IA’ s a nd IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inations. Se e Zhi , 751 F.3d a t 1091 (quoting Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1043-44 (9th C ir. 2010) (a d ve rse c re dibility finding c annot be ba se d only on “ utte rly

trivia l” inc onsiste nc ie s tha t do not be ar on a pe t itione r’ s ve ra c ity

“ unde r the tota l c irc um s ta nc e s” )). In sum , the B IA’ s a nd IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inations a

re not ba s e d on substa

ntia l e vide n c e . The pe tition for re vie w is gra nte d and the c a se is re m ande d to the B IA for a -4-de te rm i nation whe the r, a c c e pting Pe titione r’ s te stim ony a s c re dible , Singh is e ligiblefor a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, or re lie f unde r the C AT. PE T IT IO N G RANT E D and RE M ANDE D.

-5-Singh v . Ly nc h , No. 12-71323

C ALLAHAN, C irc u it Judge , disse n ting I re spe c tfully

disse nt be c a

use I find the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding to be supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . The B IA provide d five re a sons in support of its a dve rse c re dibility finding: (1) inc onsiste nc ie s in Pe t itione r’ s te stim ony re ga rding whe the r he wa s hung upside down during the

first a rre st, (2) inc onsiste nc ie s in Pe titione r’ s te stim ony re ga rding whe the r his son wa s pre se nt a t the se c ond a

rre st, (3) inc onsiste nc ie s in Pe titione r’ s te stim ony re ga rding the tim e of da

y of his first a

nd third a rre sts, (4) inc onsiste nc ie s in Pe titione r’ s te stim ony

re ga rding whe t

he r his m othe r c an sign he r nam e , a nd (5) the s uspic iousne ss of the hospita liz a tion re c ords c orroborat ing Pe titione r’ s te stim ony . W hile som e of the se re a sons, sta nding a lone , m ight be insuffic ie nt to justify an a d ve rse c re dibility

finding, others a

re sound a

n d toge the r are pe rsua sive . In pa rtic u la r, Singh’ s inc onsiste n t te stim ony re ga rding whe the r he wa s hung upside down during his first a

rre st a nd whe the r his son wa s pre se nt during his se c o nd arre st c onstitute s substa

ntia l e vide nc e that Singh la c ks c re dibility . The pre se nc e of one ’ s c hild a

t the sc e ne of one ’ s a

rre st is not a

de ta il tha t is like ly to be forgotte n. R a the r, the de ta il is like ly to be a vivid a spe c t

of the fe ar and hum ilia

tion a tte nda nt 

# F IL ED SEP 24 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1to the arre st. Sim i la rly , whe the r one wa s hung upside down by the polic e is not som e thing like l y

to be m isre m e m

b e re d . The se inc onsiste n c i e s c annot be dism isse d a s the produc t of tra

nsla tion proble m s, e ve n if the c old re c ord be fore us a rgua bly shows tha t e xpla nation to bec onc e iva

b le . R a the r, “ to ove rturn a n IJ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion, we m

ust find tha

t the e vide nc e not only supports [a c ontra ry ] c o nc lusion, but c ompe ls it.” Lianhua J iang v . Holde r , 754 F.3d 733, 739 (9th C ir. 2014) (a lte rnation in origina l). Othe r e vide nc e a lso supports the IJ a n d B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding. For e xam ple , Singh c o uld not de sc ribe in a ny de ta il the purpose of the Kha lra M ission C om

m i tte e , e ve n though his a

lle ge d m e m

be rship with tha

t orga niz a tion wa s the ba sis of his alle ge d pe rse c ution by polic e in India . B e c a

use the B IA’ s de c ision is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e , I would de ny Singh’ s pe tition a s re quire d by

the REAL ID a c t .

2