Opinion ID: 181293
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The date of Singh’s high school graduation

Text: The BIA affirmed the IJ’s conclusion that Singh’s testimony regarding the timeline leading up to his first beating was inconsistent and changed from the first merits hearing to the second. The IJ’s focus on the date of Singh’s high school graduation favored a trivial (and debatable) discrepancy over substantial evidence 3 to the contrary. This is exactly the sort of cherry-picking forbidden in Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040. Singh’s written and oral testimony about his time in college and the subsequent beating by the police were consistent. The IJ instead focused on the date of Singh’s high school graduation and attributed answers to Singh which Singh never gave. For example, Singh never claimed to have graduated high school in 1979, as the IJ stated. The IJ suggested that date based on the IJ’s own calculation, but Singh did not confirm it. The IJ’s mischaracterization of Singh’s testimony cannot support an adverse credibility finding. Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejecting finding of inconsistent testimony when the IJ incorrectly summarized the testimony). The IJ’s skepticism about the timeline of Singh’s education was based largely on Singh’s asylum application, which was prepared by his attorney, Viney Gupta.1 However, the application is clearly unreliable. First, page four of Singh’s application states that he attended high school for ten years. This does not make sense. Second, the same page states that Singh worked as a Store Clerk in San 1 Attorney Viney Gupta is familiar to us because he has been the subject of more than one ineffective assistance of counsel claim before this court. See, e.g., Singh v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2007); Taher v. Mukasey, 295 F. App’x. 178 (9th Cir. 2008). 4 Diego beginning in February 2006. Singh was in detention and otherwise ineligible for a work permit at that time.2 See 8 C.F.R. § 208.7. Thus, considering the totality of the circumstances, the high school date on the asylum application is insufficient to cast doubt on Singh’s overall credibility. “Inconsistencies due to an unscrupulous preparer [of an asylum application], without other evidence of dishonesty . . . do not provide a specific and cogent basis for an adverse credibility finding.” Alvarez-Santos v. I.N.S., 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted). Moreover, a trivial inconsistency, if there was an inconsistency here at all, is not substantial evidence that Singh was not credible. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044.