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

Heading: Singh’s return trips to India

Text: The BIA affirmed the IJ’s conclusion that it was illogical for Singh to travel to India nearly every year from 1993 to 2003 if he was in danger. The IJ erred in 6 failing to state reasons for rejecting Singh’s explanation of his occasional visits to India during the years when he lived in Austria. Singh testified that he stayed away from India for more than five years after the 1987 beating. He risked returning only after his mother wrote to him that she was dying. Return trips to visit a dying parent do not support an adverse credibility finding. Smolniakova v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 1037, 1050 (9th Cir. 2005). While visiting his mother, Singh discovered that he could travel to his home town without being harassed by police. Singh was not engaged in political activity during those visits and claimed he was lulled into a false sense of security.3 After returning permanently to India, Singh renewed his involvement with the Sikh separatist movement and once again came to the attention of police. Within months, he was arrested and beaten. Singh’s explanation for his return visits is credible, and the IJ erred in not offering reasons for rejecting it. See Soto-Olarte, 555 F.3d at 1091. 3 The dissent makes much of the fact that Singh’s family remained in India during this period. Such evidence is “manifestly irrelevant” unless the family members are similarly situated to the petitioner. Jahed v. INS, 356 F.3d 991, 1001 (9th Cir. 2004); accord Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (irrelevant that petitioner’s family remained in India unharmed, because they were not “similarly situated”). Singh’s asylum application is based on his political activity in a separatist movement that advocates the creation of an independent Sikh state. Nothing in the record suggests that his wife and two small sons were involved in this political movement. Because they were not similarly situated, their continued presence in India is not relevant to our analysis. 7 e. Singh’s misstatements to border authorities and the train tickets from Austria The BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Singh told border officers that he was an Austrian citizen and carried a train ticket that seemed to contradict his testimony about how he came to the United States. Singh testified that an agent gave him a fake Austrian passport and a train ticket from Vienna to Madrid to support his assumed identity. Even though Singh presented false travel documents to U.S. customs officials, he immediately identified himself by his true name and stated that he was seeking asylum when he was apprehended for entering the country illegally. As we stated in Paramasamy v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2002), “the use of false documents for travel is not a proper basis for an adverse credibility determination.” Further, we have always recognized the distinction between “false statements made to establish the critical elements of the asylum claim from false statements made to evade INS officials.” Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1999). Therefore, the fake passport and false train ticket are not substantial evidence to support an adverse credibility finding. f. The 2004 and 2005 beatings Finally, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s conclusion that Singh’s testimony about 8 the beatings in 2004 and 2005 was “vague, lacking in detail, and without any corroboration.” But the BIA cites no rationale for this conclusion. Singh testified to the specific dates of his arrests, the events that precipitated them, the approximate number of people arrested, the length of his detention during each encounter, the number of officers who engaged in the persecution, the ways in which he was physically mistreated, the instruments used to beat him, and the warnings he was given before his release. His testimony was neither vague nor lacking in detail. Indeed, it was rather specific. Substantial evidence does not therefore support an adverse credibility finding on this ground. g. The evidence supporting Singh’s claim Immigration courts should not “selectively consider evidence, ignoring that evidence that corroborates an alien’s claims . . .” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040. The IJ and BIA ignored significant evidence that favored finding Singh credible. Neither the IJ’s nor the BIA’s opinions mention the signed and sealed letter from Simranjit Singh Mann, the leader of the Sikh separatist movement, attesting to Singh’s position in the movement and verifying Singh’s continued risk of persecution in India. Moreover, neither the IJ nor the BIA addressed the country conditions report. The IJ and the BIA thus erred in not considering this evidence in support of Singh’s claim. 9 h. Conclusion In sum, substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. “[W]hen each of the IJ’s or BIA’s proffered reasons for an adverse credibility finding fails, we must accept a petitioner’s testimony as credible.” Kaur, 379 F.3d at 890. We therefore GRANT the petition and REMAND to the BIA for further proceedings to determine whether, accepting Singh’s testimony as credible, he is eligible for relief. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1113 (9th Cir. 2006). PETITION GRANTED AND REMANDED 10