Harbjansingh Pupinderjeetsingh v. Robert Wilkinson ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARBJANSINGH No. 19-71831
PUPINDERJEETSINGH, AKA Harbhajan
Singh, Agency No. A078-400-605
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Harbjansingh Pupinderjeetsingh1 (“petitioner”), a native and citizen of India,
*
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).
1
Although petitioner’s name appears as Harbjansingh
Pupinderjeetsingh in the orders issued by the agency, the petition for review
and opening brief filed in this court show his name as Harbhajan Singh.
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his
application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
In his opening brief, petitioner does not contest the BIA’s determination that
he waived any challenge to the IJ’s demeanor, implausibility, and relocation
findings. See Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079-80 (9th Cir. 2013)
(issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between petitioner’s 2002 asylum application and his
2018 declaration and testimony as to the harm he suffered prior to his first entry to
the United States. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility
determination reasonable under the totality of the circumstances). Petitioner’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, we deny the petition
for review as to petitioner’s withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of petitioner’s CAT
2 19-71831
claim because it was based on the same testimony the agency found not credible,
and petitioner does not point to any other evidence in the record that compels the
conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the
consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-71831