Case Name: Harbel Singh RATHOR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-24
Citations: 235 F. App'x 402
Docket Number: No. 04-75731
Parties: Harbel Singh RATHOR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: NOONAN, BYBEE, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 402–403

Head Matter:
Harbel Singh RATHOR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75731.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 20, 2007 .
Filed April 24, 2007.
Before: NOONAN, BYBEE, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Harbel Singh Rathor ("Petitioner") petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeal's ("BIA") decision affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") opinion denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We review the BIA's decision for substantial evidence. Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.2000). The facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, and we do not repeat them here.
After the BIA and the IJ issued their opinions in this case, we decided Yeimane-Berhe v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 907 (9th Cir.2004); there, as here, an IJ's adverse credibility determination was grounded almost entirely on a forged document. Because the BIA and the IJ never had the opportunity to consider Yeimane-Berhe's affect on Petitioner's claims, we grant the petition for review and remand to the BIA — as the agency charged with determining credibility — "so, it can, through informed discussion and analysis, help [this] court later determine whether its decision exceeds the leeway that the law provides." Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183, 126 S.Ct. 1613, 1615, 164 L.Ed.2d 358 (2006) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION GRANTED; RE1MANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.