U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2006

Kaur v. Gonzales

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided July 26, 2006 · Alarcón, Hawkins, Thomas

192 F. App'x 621

Counsel

Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner., Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, William J. Schneider, Esq., USPO — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, ME, for Respondent.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Kaur v. Holder (9th Cir. 2010)
Kaur v. Holder (9th Cir. 2010)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM **

Palwinder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We review petitioner’s claims for substantial evidence. *622Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part, and grant in part and remand the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on inconsistencies between petitioner’s testimony, applications, and statements to an asylum officer, and questions regarding her entry into the United States and her identity. See id. at 1043-45; see also Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that she is eligible for asylum, it follows that she did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

Because petitioner raised a Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) claim to the BIA in her opening brief, and the BIA failed to address petitioner’s CAT claim, we grant the petition and remand to the BIA to consider this claim. See Mihalev v. Ashcroft, 388 F.3d 722, 731 (9th Cir. 2004); see also INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part; and REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.