Simarjit Singh v. William Barr ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 14 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SIMARJIT SINGH, No. 17-71272
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-942-126
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and JACK,*** District Judge.
Simarjit Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
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).
***
The Honorable Janis Graham Jack, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The agency’s legal
conclusions are reviewed de novo. Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820,
829 (9th Cir. 2011). We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial
evidence. Sinha v. Holder, 564 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2009). Substantial
evidence review means that we must uphold a factual finding if it is “supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence in the record.” Melkonian v.
Ashcroft, 320 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2003).
At his hearing, Singh testified to two incidents of persecution he experienced
at the hands of police in Punjab. The IJ, however, found that he did not testify
credibly and thus could not meet his burden of proof for obtaining asylum and
withholding of removal. The IJ also found that Singh did not meet his burden of
proof for obtaining CAT relief. Because these findings were supported by
substantial evidence, we deny Singh’s petition for review.
1. Singh applied for relief after May 11, 2005, therefore the REAL ID Act’s
standards regarding adverse credibility findings guide our review. See 8 U.S.C. §
1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir.
2010).
At least three specific and cogent reasons supported the agency’s credibility
determination: First, Singh did not tell the truth about the extent of his ties to the
2
United States in his credible fear interview. Second, Singh did not inform the
interviewing asylum officer that his father had been abducted by Punjab police,
and that the police threatened to do the same to him. Third, Singh testified
inconsistently regarding whether he was beaten during his second arrest. None of
Singh’s explanations for these inconsistencies “‘compels’” the conclusion that he
testified credibly. See Parada v. Sessions, 902 F.3d 901, 908–09 (9th Cir. 2018)
(quoting Afriyie v. Holder, 613 F.3d 924, 931 (9th Cir. 2010)).
2. Singh also cannot succeed on his CAT claim.1 Singh argues that we
should reverse the BIA’s denial of CAT relief on the ground that the country
conditions documents “alone compel[] the conclusion” that he is more likely than
not to be tortured if he returns to India.
Although the adverse credibility finding does not foreclose Singh’s CAT
claim, Kamalthas v. I.N.S., 251 F.3d 1279, 1284 (9th Cir. 2001), he has not
presented sufficient evidence to compel reversal of the agency’s torture-related
findings. The BIA properly considered whether there was “independent evidence
that would suffice to sustain [Singh’s] burden without regard to the evidence found
not credible.” The IJ concluded that, while “tensions continue to exist between
1
The government maintains that Singh has waived his CAT claim because he
failed to meaningfully contest the issue in his opening brief. Because Singh
included this issue in the main text of his opening brief and argued it separately
from his asylum and withholding claims, he did not forfeit it. See Barrios v.
Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 856 n.6 (9th Cir. 2009).
3
different communities in India, there is no evidence to show that Singh would
likely be the target” of torture.
The IJ’s decision reflects that he considered Singh’s country conditions
documentation and came to a reasoned conclusion regarding the likelihood that
Singh would suffer torture. Singh has not identified anything in the record that
calls into question the IJ’s analysis of the country conditions evidence. We
therefore conclude that substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT
relief.
Petition DENIED.
4