Chawla v. Holder
The agency’s adverse credibility finding is not supported by substantial evidence because none of the following seven reasons articulated by the IJ or BIA, considered either separately or in combination, provide a legitimate basis to question Chawla’s credibility: (1) Submission of differing newspaper articles (Chala provided reasonable explanations and agency did not specifically address explanations); (2) failure to explain sentence in gov’t newspaper article (Chawla’s inability to explain the single, contradicted sentence can’t support adverse finding); (3) failure to provide corroborating evidence regarding his suspension from employment, and inconsistent evidence regarding end of employment (based on impermissible speculation and conjecture and inconsistency involved did not go to heart of claim); (4) failure to provide “strong” corroborating evidence of the bus explosion and subsequent arrest and abuse (based on impermissible speculation and conjecture) ; (5) an “implausible” explanation of how Chala received his visa to enter the United States (mischaracterization of the testimony); (6) background information regarding the current treatment of Sikhs in New Dehli (an error to base an adverse credibility finding on 2003 reports when Chala’s mistreatment was in 1998); and (7) testimony that the Indian Police are still interested in Chawla (agency’s disbelief based on impermissible speculation).
newimmigrationcases
