Case Name: Balvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-16
Citations: 131 F. App'x 577
Docket Number: No. 04-73035; Agency No. A75-253-708
Parties: Balvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 577–578

Head Matter:
Balvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73035.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2005.
Decided May 16, 2005.
Ste. B-6, Law Office of Randhir S. Kang, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Ruth A. McQuade, Andrew J. Doyle, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Balvir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination, Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000), and we grant the petition for review, and remand.
The IJ's adverse credibility determination rested on minor inconsistencies and omissions that did not go to the heart of Singh's claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001). Furthermore, the IJ impermissibly required Singh to provide corroborating evidence. See Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 688 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, the IJ's adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. See Vilorio-Lopez v. INS, 852 F.2d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir.1988).
We remand this matter for further proceedings to determine whether, accepting Singh's testimony as credible, he is eligible for asylum and withholding of deportation. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Edüd 272 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.