
    Major SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-71367.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
    
    Decided Aug. 31, 2004.
    Tsz-Hai Huang, Hardeep S. Rai, Earle A. Sylva, Tsz-Hai Huang, Rai & Assoc., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., John L. Davis, Larry P. Cote, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: PREGERSON, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Reviewing for substantial evidence, we determine that the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding is supported by Singh’s inconsistent testimony about his fear of the police, which goes to the heart of his asylum and withholding claims. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042-44 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge,

Dissenting.

The Immigration Judge found Singh incredible based on insignificant discrepancies in his testimony. I believe that the minor inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony cannot support the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility determination. See Osorio v. INS, 99 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir.1996). The trivial errors in Singh’s testimony did not “go to the heart of the asylum claim, or reveal anything about [Singh’s] fear for his safety.” See Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 660 (9th Cir.2003). Singh’s testimony, taken as true, establishes past persecution and a well-founded fear of future persecution. Thus, I would find that Singh is eligible for asylum and grant his petition.

I respectfully dissent. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     