Case Name: Kewal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-12
Citations: 258 F. App'x 977
Docket Number: No. 04-73795
Parties: Kewal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 258
Pages: 977–978

Head Matter:
Kewal SINGH, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73795.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 19, 2007.
Filed Dec. 12, 2007.
Pardeep Singh Grewal, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Keeney, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Peter D. Keisler, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The record compels our conclusion that the adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. Kewal Singh's testimony appears to us to be consistent rather than inconsistent, and this was critical to the credibility determination. The discrepancy and inability to remember the dates of another individual's arrest are inadequate on this record to support an adverse credibility determination.
Accordingly, the petition for review is GRANTED and the case is REMANDED for a determination on the merits of Singh's applications for relief.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.2004).
. See, e.g., Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 660 (9th Cir.2003).