Case Name: Manbindar Singh MINHAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-24
Citations: 137 F. App'x 49
Docket Number: No. 03-71549; Agency No. A76-849-192
Parties: Manbindar Singh MINHAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondents.
Judges: Before TALLMAN, BYBEE, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 137
Pages: 49–50

Head Matter:
Manbindar Singh MINHAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondents.
No. 03-71549.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 17, 2005.
Decided June 24, 2005.
Robert B. Jobe, Law Office of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Earle B. Wilson, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before TALLMAN, BYBEE, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Manbinder Singh Minhas, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency's findings of adverse credibility, Chen v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 611, 617 (9th Cir.2004), and changed country conditions, Lopez v. Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 805 (9th Cir.2004).
The IJ's adverse credibility determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The IJ's conclusion that Minhas's testimony was implausible was a matter of conjecture, see Abovian v. INS, 219 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir.2000), amended by 228 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.2000), and the IJ did not identify any material inconsistencies upon which he based the adverse credibility finding. See Garrovillas v. INS, 156 F.3d 1010, 1014 (9th Cir.1998). The alternative finding by the IJ that the government established changed country conditions in India since 1997 and forward was not supported by an individualized analysis of how these changed conditions affected Minhas's situation. See Lopez, 366 F.3d at 805.
We grant the petition for review, remanding to the BIA for it to reconsider whether, taking Minhas's testimony as true, he has shown eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002); Lopez, 366 F.3d at 807.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.
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.