Gursharanjit Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
GURSHARANJIT SINGH, No. 09-71926
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-589-585
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted August 16, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Gursharanjit Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeal’s decision affirming an immigration
judge’s denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture based on the judge’s adverse
credibility finding. Singh also petitions for review of the BIA’s affirmation of the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
IJ’s denial of Singh’s request for the admission of a psychological evaluation as
evidence. We remand.
This court’s jurisdiction arises under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. This court reviews the
relevant legal conclusions de novo. Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747
(9th Cir. 2009). The IJ’s factual findings are reviewed under the substantial
evidence standard. Lopez-Rodriquez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012, 1015 (9th Cir.
2008). This court considers both the Board’s and the IJ’s decision in conducting its
review. Plasencia-Ayala v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 738, 743 (9th Cir. 2008). This court
reviews the denial of a continuance for abuse of discretion. Rendon v. Holder, 588
F.3d 669, 674 (9th Cir. 2009).
At the initial hearing before the IJ, the IJ issued an oral decision denying
Singh’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal, finding that the
testimony contained inherent ambiguities. The BIA then affirmed the IJ’s decision
without issuing a separate opinion. Singh appealed, and we remanded the case for
an explicit credibility determination. The Board complied.
At a status hearing on remand, Singh requested to present evidence of a
psychological evaluation which Singh claimed would explain the inconsistencies in
his previous testimony. The IJ held, however, that the remand instructions from
this court and the BIA were limited to rendering a new decision on the issue of
2
credibility. On this basis, the IJ declined to accept further evidence regarding
Singh’s psychological condition.
Our previous remand order contained no such limitation. The IJ had broad
discretion to grant or deny a continuance. We therefore remand so that the IJ can
determine, free of his misconception about our previous order, whether to do so.
We REMAND for proceedings consistent with this disposition.
3