SUKHDEV MANN V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 13-70002 (9th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUKHDEV SINGH MANN, Petitioner, No. 13-70002 Agency No. A099-912-319 v. MEMORANDUM* ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 10, 2015** Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Sukhdev Singh Mann, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We grant the petition for review and remand. Substantial evidence does not support the BIA’s adverse credibility determination, because the alleged inconsistency the BIA relied on is not supported by the record and the “omission” it relied on is not a specific and cogent reason to find Mann not credible under the totality of the circumstances. See Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970-976 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1089 (9th Cir. 2011) (adverse credibility determination was not supported under the “totality of the circumstances”). Thus, we remand Mann’s asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims on an open record for further proceedings consistent with this disposition. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam); see also Soto-Olarte, 555 F.3d 1089, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2009). PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED. 2 13-70002

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.