Singh, et al v. Holder, No. 07-70064 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 07 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KANWAL DALER SINGH, Petitioner, No. 07-70064 Agency No. A078-674-509 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 November 4, 2010 San Francisco, California Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, RYMER, Circuit Judge and KENNELLY, District Judge.** The government failed to provide Singh the originals of the allegedly fraudulent English letter from Dr. Bedi and the letter in Punjabi Dr. Bedi gave to DHS investigators even though it knew Singh wanted to use the letters in his defense * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. page 2 against the government s allegations. See Dent v. Holder, No. 09-71987, 2010 WL 4455877, at *6 (9th Cir. Nov. 9, 2010) (holding that failure to provide documents in government s possession denied alien an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate his removal ). At Singh s final hearing, the IJ stated that it would be probative of Singh s truthfulness if he could prove by forensic analysis of the originals that Dr. Bedi signed letters in both English and Punjabi, yet refused to grant a continuance for that purpose. This denied Singh a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against [him]. 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(4)(B); see Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 13 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that denial of continuance shouldn t exclude evidence of vital importance to the alien s case). This was an abuse of discretion. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1110 11 (9th Cir. 2010). The adverse credibility determination and frivolous application finding are vacated. The BIA s denial of all relief to Singh resulted from these findings and is likewise vacated. Because Maharaj v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 961 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc), changed the law on firm resettlement findings, we leave that issue for the BIA to address in the first instance. See INS v. Orlando Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 17 (2002). GRANTED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.