Case Name: Beant SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-12
Citations: 176 F. App'x 784
Docket Number: No. 04-71827
Parties: Beant SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 784–785

Head Matter:
Beant SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71827.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2006.
Decided April 12, 2006.
Martin Resendiz Guajardo, Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Michelle E. Gorden, Attorney, Victor M. Lawrence, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, MCKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Beant Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") opinion which summarily affirmed 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 grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.
Where, as here, the BIA affirms without an opinion, we review the IJ's decision directly. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We review for substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001).
The IJ's adverse credibility determination relied upon minor inconsistencies that do not go to the heart of Singh's claim. See id. at 1043; see also Bandari v. INS, 227 F.3d 1160, 1165-68 (9th Cir.2000). Accordingly, the IJ's adverse credibility determination is not supported by substantial evidence. See Bandari, 227 F.3d at 1165—66.
We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings to determine whether, accepting Singh's testimony as credible, he is eligible for asylum and withholding of removal. 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 and 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.