Billa Singh v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                               NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         JUN 14 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BILLA SINGH,                                    No.    20-70282
    Petitioner,                     Agency No. A089-650-532
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
    General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted June 10, 2021**
    Portland, Oregon
    Before: WARDLAW, TALLMAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Billa Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of
    the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from a decision
    of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) pretermitting his application for adjustment of
    status and denying his application for protection under the Convention Against
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Torture (“CAT”). “We review findings of fact for substantial evidence and
    questions of law de novo.” Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 
    610 F.3d 1118
    , 1121 (9th
    Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). We have jurisdiction under 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    , and we
    deny the petition for review.
    1.     Singh’s petition for review fails to address how the BIA erred in
    finding that he forfeited on appeal any challenge to the IJ’s decision that he had
    failed to timely file all necessary documents in support of his application for
    adjustment or prove he had paid the filing fee. In his opening brief, Singh merely
    states that he “filed an attachment with Notice to Appeal, brief with the BIA[,] . . .
    and supplemental brief with additional evidence that BIA failed to consider.”
    Because Singh failed to “specifically and distinctly argue[]” the issue in his
    petition for review, he has forfeited it. Koerner v. Grigas, 
    328 F.3d 1039
    , 1048
    (9th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up).
    2.     Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief
    because Singh failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by
    or with the consent or acquiescence of “a public official . . . or other person acting
    in an official capacity” if returned to India. See 
    8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.17
    (a),
    1208.18(a)(1). Where the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision citing Matter of Burbano,
    
    20 I. & N. Dec. 872
     (B.I.A. 1994), “we review the IJ’s decision as if it were the
    BIA’s.” Cortez-Pineda, 
    610 F.3d at 1121
    . Singh argues that the IJ erred by not
    2
    considering that the police were unwilling to help him in the past and points to his
    testimony regarding comments made by the police. However, the IJ considered all
    the evidence in the record, found that Singh’s testimony was only “marginally
    credible,” and noted that general country conditions reports did not indicate that
    Singh would be tortured if returned to India. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 
    457 F.3d 915
    , 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming the BIA when petitioner’s testimony was
    found not credible and general reports did not compel the conclusion that the
    petitioner “would be tortured if returned”). This record does not compel the
    conclusion that Singh would be tortured if returned. See 
    id.
     None of Singh’s other
    arguments have merit.
    Petitioner’s motion for stay of removal (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied
    effective on the issuance of the mandate.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-70282

Filed Date: 6/14/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/14/2021