Let me point to other information on that page that we’re looking at. The photocopied passport she submitted at the hearing was the principle document establishing Kaur’s identity. The BIA also pointed to this lack of corroboration in denying Kaur’s petition, concluding that “[e]ven assuming the respondent is credible, in light of the noted weaknesses, the respondent’s testimony alone is insufficient to carry her burden of proof without credible corroborating evidence, which she has failed to provide. I told that my father has gone to get the welfare of my ailing uncle, but they did not believe me. Kaur’s mother still lives on the family farm, but the actual farming is now done by others.
|License:||For Personal Use Only|
|iPhone 5, 5S resolutions||640×1136|
|iPhone 6, 6S resolutions||750×1334|
|iPhone 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus resolutions||1080×1920|
|Android Mobiles HD resolutions||360×640, 540×960, 720×1280|
|Android Mobiles Full HD resolutions||1080×1920|
|Mobiles HD resolutions||480×800, 768×1280|
|Mobiles QHD, iPhone X resolutions||1440×2560|
|HD resolutions||1280×720, 1366×768, 1600×900, 1920×1080, 2560×1440, Original|
But I as well told them that I traveled in some other name, but now my name is Ranjeet Kaur. Kaur testified llgo the smuggling agent was paid betweenandrupees to bring her to the United States. Because even her school set of paper is the IT.
Ranjeet S. Singh, MD
Then there were rooms in front. It held, further, that even if Kaur were found to be credible, the weaknesses in her testimony were such that the testimony was insufficient to carry her burden of proof without corroborating evidence, which she had failed to provide. Try once and test our skills and you will see the Responding Result. The IJ’s consideration of the undisputed fact that Kaur lied to Canadian and United States officials did not detract from the cogent reasoning which led to his determination that Kaur was not credible.
She brought something for me to drink. Kaur testified in detail about this experience:. His disappearance is completely consistent with Kaur’s story and claim of persecution. Immigration and Naturalization Service, F. I can see it. Kaur readily testified that she had told the officials that she had been traveling under a false name: She did not know the name on the passport.
There they fingerprinted me. Architectural Visualization our 3d visualizers look through each detail like an eagle eye. Please support our work with a donation. And I was standing there and Eschejro said, sit with me and drink with me. In the words of the government’s attorney on cross-examination: However, the passport is issued in the name of Ranjit.
RANJIT NAME LOGO
Try to show with the fingers that once I entered in the jeep from the main door I was made to get down from the jeep and there was rooms on both sides. Kaur testified that the police came to their home ramjeet five or five-thirty the next morning to arrest her father.
When after that my father came out, he had his license gun with him. Kaur’s counsel also explained that Indian passport offices have applicants sign a signature sheet which is later cut down, pasted, and embossed onto the passport. From inside the room. I said at this time I don’t want to go anywhere. I was crying, shouting for help to save me, but nobody came to save me.
John Ashcroft, Attorney General, F. I live at Jarnail Singh’s house. Then he said you bitch, are you going to open the door or not. Rxnjeet, he stated that “she clearly used a fraudulent passport in leaving India. Then I bit rwnjeet on his arm and tried to free myself and run away.
Trade Marks, Logo and Brand Registration
Third, the May incident does not go to the heart of Kaur’s claim. An asylum petitioner bears the burden of proving that she is eligible for relief.
I want you to look rajeet the right of the rectangle and I want you to notice that there is some printing that is — something has been blotted out by the rectangle. A fortiori, a general response to questioning, followed by a more specific, consistent response to further questioning is not a cogent reason for supporting a negative credibility finding.