Court Opinion

ID: 9815362
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 00:47:13.748233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:53.448944
License: Public Domain

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because I find the BIA’s adverse credibility finding to be supported by substantial evidence.
The BIA provided five reasons in support of its adverse credibility finding: (1) inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony regarding whether he was hung upside down during the first arrest, (2) inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony regarding whether his son was present at the second arrest, (3) inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony regarding the time of day of his first and third arrests, (4) inconsistencies in Petitioner’s testimony regarding whether his mother can sign her name, and (5) the suspiciousness of the hospitalization records corroborating Petitioner’s testimony.
While some of these reasons, standing alone, might be insufficient to justify an adverse credibility finding, others are sound and together are persuasive. In particular, Singh’s inconsistent testimony *876regarding whether he was hung upside down during his first arrest and whether his son was present during his second arrest constitutes substantial evidence that Singh lacks credibility. The presence of one’s child at the scene of one’s arrest is not a detail that is likely to be forgotten. Rather, the detail is likely to be- a vivid aspect of the fear and humiliation attendant to the arrest. Similarly, whether one was hung upside down by the police is not something likely to be misremembered. These inconsistencies cannot be dismissed as the product of translation problems, even if the cold record before us arguably shows that explanation to be conceivable. Rather, “to overturn an IJ’s adverse credibility determination, we must find that the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it.” Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 739 (9th Cir.2014) (alternation in original).
Other evidence also supports the IJ and BIA’s adverse credibility finding. For example, Singh could not describe in any detail the purpose' of the Khalra Mission Committee, even though his alleged membership with that organization was the basis of his alleged persecution by police in India. Because the BIA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, I would deny Singh’s petition as required by the REAL ID act.