Opinion ID: 181293
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The letter from Singh’s physician

Text: The BIA affirmed the IJ’s finding that Singh was not credible because the doctor’s letter Singh submitted about his 1987 injuries did not specify that Singh was beaten. The letter from Singh’s treating physician, however, is not, on its face, inconsistent with Singh’s testimony. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1112 (9th Cir. 2002) (finding a doctor’s letter not inconsistent with petitioner’s claims 2 We note that on the same day Attorney Viney Gupta prepared this asylum application, he also prepared an I-134 Affidavit of Support from Singh’s cousin, Jagir Singh, who lived in San Diego. Taken together, the documents give rise to a clear inference that there was a mix-up of information. 5 when it did not directly contradict his testimony). The letter merely suggests a possible cause of Singh’s injuries. Moreover, Singh offered several plausible explanations why the doctor may not have stated that Singh was beaten. The failure of the IJ to articulate reasons for rejecting Singh’s explanations was error. See Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 887 (9th Cir. 2004) (“An adverse credibility finding is improper when an IJ fails to address a petitioner’s explanation for a discrepancy or inconsistency.”)). The IJ also faulted Singh for not providing corroborating evidence about the 1987 beating. But, as we stated in Aden, “an applicant cannot be turned down solely because he fails to provide evidence corroborating his testimony, where he does not have and cannot reasonably obtain the corroboration.” 589 F.3d at 1045; see Kaur, 379 F.3d at 890 (finding that documents from friends and neighbors in India are not easily available). Even if Singh was able to reach his family in India, it is unreasonable to expect that they would have been able to track down an emergency room physician who treated him nearly a quarter century ago.