neutral
Cited (no substantive treatment)
published
0.4 score
Cited for
No citing cases on record.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rupinder KAUR; Loveleen Kaur, Petitioners,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent
99-70395.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
May 11, 2001.
Published opinion
Jonathan M. Kaufman, San Francisco, California, for the petitioner., Cindy S. Ferrier, United States Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for the respondent.
Nelson, Thompson, Trott.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
ORDER AMENDING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND AMENDED OPINION
ORDER
The opinion filed' January 24, 2001 is amended as follows:
1. At page 1154 of the slip opinion, in the middle of the paragraph that begins with the words “Second, the Kaurs made a showing”, delete the following two sentences:
In this case, the asylum officer’s adverse credibility finding was likely based on the resource materials that he consulted. Even though the IJ would have made an independent review of the asylum application, there was a high probability not only that the government would challenge the Kaurs’ credibility, but that the resource materials would be a cornerstone of the government’s effort to impeach their testimony.
2. Insert in place of the deleted sentences the following:
In this case, it would be reasonable to assume that the asylum officer used the resource materials which he consulted to arrive at his adverse credibility finding. Even though the IJ would have made an independent review of the asylum application, it would also be reasonable to[*831] expect not only that the government would challenge the Kaurs’ credibility, but that the resource materials would be used by the government in its effort to impeach their testimony.
With the foregoing amendment, the Respondent INS’s petition for panel rehearing is denied.