Case Name: Sarbjit Singh MEHROK, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-04
Citations: 125 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 04-70809
Parties: Sarbjit Singh MEHROK, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
Sarbjit Singh MEHROK, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-70809.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 2005.
Decided April 4, 2005.
Pardeep Singh Grewal, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Ari Nazarov, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sarbjit Singh Mehrok, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We dismiss in part and grant in part.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), we dismiss Mehrok's asylum claim as unreviewable because the IJ determined that the application was untimely. See Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2001).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and review for substantial evidence adverse credibility determinations. See Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1165 (9th Cir.2000). Here, the adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 1166.
Accordingly, we remand to the BIA for further proceedings to determine the merits of Mehrok's withholding of removal and CAT claims. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).
DISMISSED in part; GRANTED in part; 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.