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 and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e F r e de r i c B l oc k, S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** the E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof

N e w Y ork, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. 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 P AR MI ND E R S I NG H C HA WL A, 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 yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 05- 77231 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 560- 443 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 M a y5, 2010 P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: O ’ S C A N N L A IN and T A L L M A N , C i rc ui tJudg es , and B L O C K , D i stri ct Judg e. ** P a rm i nde rS i ngh C ha w l ape t i t i ons f orr e vi e w of

ade c i s i on of

the B oa r d of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ( “ B I A ” ) de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i ons f ora s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng of re m ov al . W e a ss um e f am i l i ar i ty w i th the fa ct s, pri or proceedi ng s, and i ss ues



# FI LED MA Y26 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

p resen t ed . B ecau se th e B IA o v erru l ed th e Im m i g rat i o n Ju d g e’ s (“ IJ”) ad v erse cr ed ib il ity f

in d in g b u t o th erw ise a ff irm ed th e I J’s d ec isio n , w e r ev iew th e I J’s de c i s i on, a s m odi f

i e d by the B I A , a s the f

i na l a ge nc yde c i s i on. G o n z a lezv . I NS , 82 F . 3d 90 3, 90 7 (9th C i r. 19 96 ). T he IJ ’ s f

i nd i ng thatC haw l a w as no tt ar get ed on ac coun tof a prot ec t ed gr ound i s nots upport e d by s ubs t a nt i a l e vi de nc e . T o the c ontr a ry , the t e s t i m onyof C ha w l aa nd hi s f

a the rbe f or e the I J , de e m e d c r e di bl e bythe B I A , c om pe l s the concl usi on thatthe harm C haw l a s uffe re d w as “ atl ea sti n p art ” on accountof an im p u te dp o litic a l o p in io n b e c au s e o f th e e th n ic s lu r s . Si nh a v. H older , 564 F . 3d 1 0 1 5 , 1 0 2 1 - 2 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “T h e f a c t th a t th e a tta c k e r s w e r e a ls o e v id e n tly m ot i va t e d by ade s i r e t o s t e a l pe t i t i one r s ’ m one ya nd va l uabl e s doe s notunde r c ut the r ol e tha tr a c i a l a ni m us pl a y e d i n the i rm ot i va t i on. P e r s e c ut or s c a n ha ve m ul t i pl e m ot i ves. ”) . In fi nd i ng thatC haw l a had no tsuff er ed pastpers ec ut i on , the IJconsi dere d o n l y th e b eat i n g C h aw l a su ffered o n Ju n e 7 , 2 0 0 3 . A l th o u g h th e reco rd i n th i s case d o e s n o t c o m p e l af

in d in g o f p a s t p e r s e c u tio n , th e I Jc o m m itte d le g a l e rr o rin f a i l i ng t o c ons i de rthe c um ul a t i ve e f f e c tof the a ddi t i ona l ha r a s s m e nt , thr e a t s , a nd e x to rtio n s u f

f e r e d b y C h a w laa n d h is f a m ily . See Krotova v. G on zales , 416 F . 3d 1080, 1084 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . A c c or di ngl y , thi s c a s e m us tbe r e m a nde d f or3

r e c o n s id e r a tio n u n d e rth e c o rr e c t s ta n d a r d . O rnelas-Cha vez v . G on zales , 458 F . 3d 10 52 , 10 58 (9th C i r. 20 06 ). T hi s c as e i s r em anded for the B IA t o d et erm i ne w hether C haw l a has d e m o n s tr a te d e lig ib ilityf o ra s y lu m a n d w ith h o ld in g o f r e m o v a l. T h e p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew i s GR AN T E D a n d t h e c a s e i s RE MAND E D t o t h e B I A.