NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 06 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SURINDER KAUR; et al., No. 09-73209
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A096-167-433
A096-167-434
v. A096-167-435
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
ORDER and MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued January 13, 2014
Submitted March 6, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: McKEOWN,** TALLMAN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
This case is submitted as of the date of this order.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
Judge McKeown was drawn to replace Judge Alarcón following his
death. Judge McKeown has read the briefs, reviewed the record, and listened to
the audio recording of oral argument held on January 13, 2014.
Surinder Kaur petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s
(BIA) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. Kaur’s
petition for review was timely filed, see Abdisalan v. Holder, 774 F.3d 517 (9th
Cir. 2014) (en banc), and we have jurisdiction over this appeal under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(1).
The BIA erred in concluding that Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir.
2004) foreclosed Kaur’s asylum claim. While legitimate criminal investigation or
prosecution does not constitute persecution on the basis of a protected ground, see
id. at 1044, Kaur credibly testified that she was beaten and raped by a police
inspector, which did not constitute “interrogation tactics . . . directed at the
legitimate goal of finding evidence of crime,” id. Because her abuse was not part
of a legitimate criminal investigation, her claim was not foreclosed by Dinu, and
therefore the BIA erred in failing to consider Kaur’s claim of persecution on
account of a protected ground.
Moreover, even if there had been a legitimate prosecutorial purpose for such
actions, the BIA erred in failing to consider whether Kaur presented sufficient
evidence that her persecution was motivated in part by her political opinion. See
Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1112 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that an asylum
2
claim can succeed if one of the motives for persecution was based on a protected
ground).
We therefore remand to the BIA to consider Kaur’s claim that she was
persecuted based on imputed political opinion. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12,
16 (2002) (per curiam).
PETITION GRANTED.
3