Case Name: Mandeep 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: 130 F. App'x 925
Docket Number: No. 04-70782
Parties: Mandeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 130
Pages: 925–927

Head Matter:
Mandeep SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-70782.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2005.
Decided May 16, 2005.
Robert B. Jobe, Esq., Law Offices of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Alison Marie Igoe, Esq., 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
Mandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") affirming an Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and request for protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Njuguna v. Ashcroft, 374 F.3d 765, 769 (9th Cir.2004), grant the petition for review, and remand for further proceedings.
First, the IJ's adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence because it is based on minor omissions, see Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir.2000), and speculation and conjecture, see Shah v. INS, 220 F.3d 1062, 1069 (9th Cir.2000). Second, the record shows that Singh was persecuted, at least in part, on account of an imputed political opinion. See Navas v. INS, 217 F.3d 646, 659 & n. 18 (9th Cir.2000); Singh v. Ilchert, 69 F.3d 375, 379 & n. 1 (9th Cir.1995). The record also shows that the treatment experienced by Singh was sufficiently severe to compel a finding of past persecution. See Mamouzian v. Ash croft, 390 F.3d 1129, 1134 (9th Cir.2004).
We therefore grant the petition and remand this case for further proceedings on the merits of Singh's asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 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.
. We reject the government's assertion that Singh has waived any challenge to the IJ's alternate rulings by failing to properly preserve these issues; the record shows that Singh raised all applicable issues both before the BIA and before this court.