Satnam Singh v. Jefferson Sessions , 700 F. App'x 771 ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 09 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SATNAM SINGH, No. 15-70583
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-795-270
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 12, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and REINHARDT and O’MALLEY,** Circuit
Judges.
Satnam Singh, a citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ order, adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ’s”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Kathleen M. O’Malley, United States Circuit Judge for
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.
Substantial evidence does not support the agency’s adverse credibility
finding. The IJ determined that Singh’s testimony was inconsistent with itself and
with other record evidence. The cited inconsistencies, however, arise from
apparent errors in the translation process, not from Singh’s dishonesty. See
Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 663 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e have
long recognized that difficulties in interpretation may result in seeming
inconsistencies . . . .”). Although a natural reading of the record suggests that the
inconsistencies were introduced during translation of Singh’s testimony from
Punjabi to English, neither the IJ nor the Board considered this possibility. See
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010) (“In evaluating
inconsistencies, the relevant circumstances that an IJ should consider include the
[applicant’s] explanation for a perceived inconsistency . . . and other record
evidence that sheds light on whether there is in fact an inconsistency at all.”).
The record does not support the findings that factored into the IJ’s adverse
credibility finding. First, the IJ determined that Singh intermittently referred to his
treating doctor—who, according to record evidence, is female—as male.
However, Singh expressly and repeatedly described the doctor as female. While
2
the male pronoun was used to describe the doctor, a fair reading of the transcript
demonstrates that any error was likely introduced by the translator rather than
Singh. The IJ unreasonably attributed these perceived inconsistencies to
dishonesty rather than miscommunication. See Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1100
n.4 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[S]ome of the perceived inconsistencies on which the IJ based
his adverse credibility finding had more to do with translation and transcription
problems than the credibility of [the petitioner’s] claim.”).
Relatedly, the IJ determined that Singh inconsistently alleged to have
received treatment from two different doctors, but Singh’s descriptions of medical
care were consistent throughout the removal hearing. The IJ erred in discounting
Singh’s testimony on this basis.
PETITION GRANTED; REMANDED.
3