Case Name: Rupinder KAUR; Loveleen Kaur, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-24
Citations: 249 F.3d 830
Docket Number: No. 99-70395
Parties: Rupinder KAUR; Loveleen Kaur, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
Judges: Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, David R. Thompson, and Stephen S. Trott, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 249
Pages: 830–831

Head Matter:
Rupinder KAUR; Loveleen Kaur, Petitioners, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.
No. 99-70395.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 4, 2000
Filed Jan. 24, 2001
Amended May 11, 2001
Jonathan M. Kaufman, San Francisco, California, for the petitioner.
Cindy S. Ferrier, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.
Before: Dorothy W. Nelson, David R. Thompson, and Stephen S. Trott, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND AMENDED OPINION
ORDER
The opinion filed' January 24, 2001 is amended as follows:
1. At page 1154 of the slip opinion, in the middle of the paragraph that begins with the words "Second, the Kaurs made a showing", delete the following two sentences:
In this case, the asylum officer's adverse credibility finding was likely based on the resource materials that he consulted. Even though the IJ would have made an independent review of the asylum application, there was a high probability not only that the government would challenge the Kaurs' credibility, but that the resource materials would be a cornerstone of the government's effort to impeach their testimony.
2. Insert in place of the deleted sentences the following:
In this case, it would be reasonable to assume that the asylum officer used the resource materials which he consulted to arrive at his adverse credibility finding. Even though the IJ would have made an independent review of the asylum application, it would also be reasonable to expect not only that the government would challenge the Kaurs' credibility, but that the resource materials would be used by the government in its effort to impeach their testimony.
With the foregoing amendment, the Respondent INS's petition for panel rehearing is denied.