GURSHARANJIT SINGH V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 09-71926 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SEP 13 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS GURSHARANJIT SINGH, Petitioner, No. 09-71926 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. ยง 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
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.
