MEMORANDUM **

Reviewing for substantial evidence, we determine that the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding is supported by Singh’s inconsistent testimony about his fear of the police, which goes to the heart of his asylum and withholding claims. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042-44 (9th Cir. 2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

Dissenting.

The Immigration Judge found Singh incredible based on insignificant discrepancies in his testimony. I believe that the minor inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony cannot support the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination. See Osorio v. INS, 99 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir. 1996). The trivial errors in Singh’s testimony did not “go to the heart of the asylum claim, or reveal anything about [Singh’s] fear for his safety.” See Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 660 (9th Cir. 2003). Singh’s testimony, taken as true, establishes past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution. Thus, I would find that Singh is eligible for asylum and grant his petition.

I respectfully dissent.