N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KULVINDER

KAUR , Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 11-70245 Age n c y No. A072-129-973 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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 10, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge and SC HR OEDER and NGUYEN, C irc uit Judge s. Kulvinde r Ka

ur pe titions for re v ie w of a B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm ing the de nia l of he r a pplic at ions for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, re l ie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ), a nd volunta

ry de pa rture . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252(a ), and we grant the pe tition. 

# FIL ED FEB 23 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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.The a dve rse c re d i bility finding, a s justifie d by the B IA, wa s not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . The B IA c ite d only two purporte d inc o nsiste nc i e s in Ka ur’ s te stim ony , both of whic h a re insuffic ie nt to support the finding. Thefirst of the s e — a witne s s’ s ina

bility to c orroborate Ka

ur’ s te stim ony

c onc e rning the de ath of he r unc le

—

re lie s on c onje c ture a

bout the witne ss’ s c onve rsations with Ka ur and im ports c ultura l a ssum

ptions tha t m a y not a pply to the pe titione r and he r witne ss. K umar v . Gonzale

s , 444 F.3d 1043, 1052 (9th C ir. 2006) (holding tha t an a dve rse c re d ibility

finding wa s im

prope rly ba se d on c o nje c ture whe n the Im m igration Judge de te rm ine d tha

t it wa s inc re dible tha

t the pe titione r would not know his brothe r’ s whe re a

bouts de spite the ir ha

ving fle d India

toge the r). The se c ond purporte d

inc onsiste nc y

—Ka ur’ s c onflic ting te stim ony a bout whic h politic a l fa c tion shebe longe d to— did not go to the

he art of the c l a im , a s re quire d in pre -R EAL ID Ac t c a se s suc h a s this one . Marc os v . Gonzale s , 410 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th C ir. 2005). Signific antly , Ka ur c la im s tha

t she wa s pe rse c ute d for he r involve m e nt in theAll India Sikh Stude nt Fe de ra tion (“ AISSF” ), not for he r involve m e nt, if a ny , in Aka li Da l. M ore ove r, he r e xpla nation tha t the two fa c tions som e tim e s worke d toge the r wa s im prope rly re je c te d by the B IA, whic h c ite d e vide nc e of the fa c tions’ disa gre e m e nt on c e rta in

2issue s, but disre ga rde d e vide nc e of the fa c t ions’ a gre e m e nt on othe r im porta nt issue s. The B IA a lso fa ile d to a ddre ss doc um e n t ary e vide nc e subm itte d by

Ka ur to support he r te stim ony . Se e Lin v . Gonzale s , 434 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th C ir. 2006) (noting tha

t a lthough the

trie r of fa c t m ay

find tha t doc um e n ta

ry e vide nc e is not c re d ible , “ the re c ord m

ust inc lude som e ‘ e vide nc e unde rm ining the ir re lia bility ,’ suc h tha t a re vie wing c ourt c an obje c tive ly ve rify whe the r the IJ ha s a

le gitim ate ba sis to distrust the

doc um e nts.” ). Ka

ur subm itte d a

de ath c e rtific ate c orroborating he r te stim ony

c onc e rning he r unc le ’ s de ath; a n a ffida vit from R anjit Singh, her villa ge sa rpanc h, supporting he

r te stim ony

tha t she ha d be e n a rre s te d a nd torture d; and a le tte r from

the AISSF pre side nt c onfirm ing tha t she wa s a m e m

be r of the orga niz ation a nd tha t she fle d India

due to ha ra ssm e nt by

polic e . The B IA did not a ddre s s this e vide nc e e ve n though it supporte d ke y points in Ka ur’ s c la i m . PE T IT IO N G RANT E D AND RE M A N DE D.

3