Amardeep Palaha v. Loretta E. Lynch , 671 F. App'x 417 ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMARDEEP SINGH PALAHA, No. 13-72752
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-299-994
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 17, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: GRABER, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Amardeep Singh Palaha, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that denied his appeal from
a decision of an immigration judge (“IJ”) that denied his claims for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)
based on the determination that Palaha was not credible and therefore ineligible for
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
his requested relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the
petition.
1. We review an adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence.
Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011). “[W]e must uphold the IJ’s
adverse credibility determination so long as even one basis is supported by
substantial evidence . . . .” Id. at 1088. An IJ is permitted to consider the “totality
of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors” when making an adverse credibility
determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Here, the IJ and BIA determined
that Palaha was not credible based on what the IJ and BIA considered to be several
substantial and material inconsistencies and omissions between Palaha’s
declarations and his testimony. Substantial evidence supports at least two of these
grounds. First, Palaha’s initial declaration stated that, during his first arrest, he was
taken to the Division Four police station, while Palaha’s parents’ initial
declarations stated that he was kept at the “C.I.A. station.” Palaha’s supplemental
declaration and testimony resolved this inconsistency by saying that he was moved
from the Division Four station to the C.I.A. station. This alteration provides
substantial evidence for the adverse credibility determination. See Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that material alterations in a
2
petitioner’s declaration can provide substantial evidence for an adverse credibility
determination). Second, Palaha initially omitted any reference to seeking medical
treatment for his injuries after his second arrest, but Palaha later provided a letter
from a clinic saying that he received emergency medical treatment. This
supplemental testimony created a more compelling story of persecution and
provides substantial evidence for the adverse credibility determination. See id. at
974; see also Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738–40 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that
the record did not compel the conclusion that a petitioner was credible where she
failed to testify at her merits hearing about critical facts involving her physical
abuse in jail). Because the record does not compel the conclusion that Palaha is
credible, Khadka v. Holder, 618 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir. 2010), we deny the
petition to review the adverse credibility determination.
2. To establish eligibility for relief under the CAT, a petitioner must show
that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if he returns to his country of
removal. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Where a petitioner’s testimony of past torture
is not credible, the Board’s denial of CAT relief is supported by substantial
evidence unless the petitioner’s documentary evidence compels the conclusion that
the petitioner would likely be tortured in his country of return. Go v. Holder, 640
3
F.3d 1047, 1053 (9th Cir. 2011). Here, Palaha submitted country reports showing
that police abuse is common in India. However, Palaha’s reports also indicate that
members of his political party are not targeted by the police based on their political
opinion, unless they are otherwise suspected of terrorism. Because Palaha’s
documentary evidence does not compel the conclusion that he would be tortured in
India, substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1053–54.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4