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

SINGH, Pe t i tione r, v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 18-70088 Age n c y No. A205-587-087
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 Subm itte d M arc h 3, 2020 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : W OLLM AN, *** FER NANDEZ, a

nd PAEZ, C irc uit Judge s. Gurshinde r Singh, a

native and c itiz e n of India , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) dism issa l of his a ppe a l from

the 

# FIL ED MAR 18 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble R oge r L. W o llm a

n , Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Eighth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.Im

m i gra tion Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of his a pplic at ion for a sy lum , 1 withholding of
re m ova l, 2 and C o n ve n t ion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ) 3 re lie f. W e grant the pe tition
and re m and. Singh a sse rts tha

t the B IA e rre d

whe n, de spite pre sum ing his te stim ony c re d ible , 4 it de nie d re lie f on the ba s is tha t Singh fa ile d to providea de quate c orroborating e vide nc e , without first giving Singh notice of the c orroborating
e vide nc e tha

t wa s ne c e ssa

ry and a n opportunity

to providethe re q

uisite e v i de nc e . Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(ii). W e a gre e . An a lie n who is pre sum e d to be c re dible m ust be give n notic e of what c orroboration is re quire d a nd a n opportunity to provide tha t c orroborating e vide nc e or to e xpla in why

the e vide nc e is not re a sona bly ava ila b le be fore the a g e n c y de te rm i ne s tha

t the a lie n did not m e e t the burde n of proof. Se e J i e Shi Liu v
. Se ssions , 891 F.3d 834, 837, 838–39 (9th C ir. 2018); Bhattarai v . Ly nc h , 835 F.3d

1 8 U.S.C . § 1158(a )(1). 2 8 U.S.C . § 1231(b)(3)(A). 3 Unite d Nat ions C onve ntion Aga i nst Torture and Othe r C rue l, Inhum an or De gra ding Tre a tm e nt or Punishm e nt, adopte d D e c . 10, 1984, S. Tre a ty Doc . No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, im ple m e nte d

a t 8 C .F.R
. § 1208.18. 4 The B IA pre sum e d tha

t Singh’ s te stim ony

wa s c re dible ba se d on its c onc lusion tha

t the IJ did not m ake an e xplic it a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). 21037, 1047 (9th C ir. 2016); c f. Yali W ang v . Se ssions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th C ir. 2017). B ut, until the IJ a nnounc e d he r de c i sion, Singh wa s una ware tha t he
ne e de d to providea dditiona l c orroborating e vide nc e be c a use the IJ ha d not give n him notic e . S e e Bhattarai , 835 F.3d a

t 1047. Nor did the

B IA provide notic e of the n e e d for a dditiona l c orroborating e vide nc e and a n opportunity

to providetha

t e vide nc e be fore it a

nnounc e d its de c ision. It e rre d whe n it fa ile d to do so. It a ppe ars tha

t the B IA de c l ine d to re a c h the m e rits of Singh’ s C AT c la im ba se d on the e rrone o us c onc lusion tha t Singh did not cha lle nge the IJ’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f. Se e Doissaint v . Muk ase y , 538 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th C i r. 2008). Howe ve r, in his brie f to the B IA, he did c ha lle nge the IJ’ s de nia l of C A T re lie f. 5 Thus, the B IA e rre d whe n it de c line d to c onside r his C AT a rgum e nts. 6 W e the re fore re m and to theB IA for furthe r proc e e dings. 7 Pe tition G RANT E D and RE M ANDE D
.

5 Se e , e .g. , Ade n v . Holde r , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th C ir. 2009). 6 Se e Honc harov

v . Barr , 924 F.3d 1293, 1296 n.2 (9th C ir. 2019) (pe r c uriam ).

7 W e note tha

t to the e xte nt Singh a s se rts tha t he wa s pre

judic e d be c a

use the inte rpre te r a t the he aring be fore the IJ wa s not qua l ifie d, he wa ive d tha t a rgum e nt by fa iling to ra ise it be fore the B IA. W e la c k jurisdic tion to c o nside r that c la im
. Se e Bre zilie n v . Holde r , 569 F.3d 403, 412 (9th C ir. 2009); Rashtabadi v . IN S , 23 F.3d 1562, 1567 (9th C ir. 1994). 3