Jarnail Singh v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 2 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JARNAIL SINGH, No. 14-73657
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-544-325
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jarnail Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.
2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and several affidavits in
the record. See id. (inconsistency between testimony and other record evidence is
an appropriate factor to consider in a credibility determination). The agency did not
err in its assessment of the affidavits which were re-submitted with alterations. See
Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s documentary
evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support
claim). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Singh’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and Singh 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 a public official in India. See id.
at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 14-73657