The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Attorney General Pamela Bondi's petition for panel rehearing in *Kaur v. Bondi*, ordering immigration authorities to reconsider credibility determinations for asylum seekers Harmeet Kaur and Sumit Kumar. The court's Jan. 2, 2026 order marks a procedural victory for the Attorney General while potentially benefiting the asylum seekers whose cases will receive fresh review.

In its amended memorandum disposition, the three-judge panel consisting of Circuit Judges Hawkins, S.R. Thomas, and McKeown ruled that "none of the adverse credibility grounds that the agency relied on for either Kaur or Kumar are supported by substantial evidence." The court granted the petition for review and remanded the case "on an open record for the agency to redetermine Kaur and Kumar's credibility."

The case involves multiple petitioners, including Harmeet Kaur, Sumit Kumar, and an individual identified only as P.K., who challenged an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals. The agency case numbers A246-269-675, A246-269-674, and A246-269-676 correspond to the three petitioners' immigration proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit's decision represents a significant development in immigration law, as credibility determinations are often central to asylum cases. By finding insufficient evidence to support the adverse credibility findings, the court has provided the asylum seekers with an opportunity for a fair reassessment of their claims. The open record remand allows for consideration of additional evidence that may not have been previously evaluated.

This ruling could have broader implications for similar immigration cases, particularly those where credibility determinations have been challenged on evidentiary grounds. The decision underscores the importance of substantial evidence in supporting adverse credibility findings in asylum proceedings.