NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURPREET SINGH,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 22

- 640 Agency No. A205

- 935

- 323

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 8, 2023 ** Seattle , Washington Before: HAWKINS, BEA, and BRESS, Circuit Judges

.

Gu r preet Singh (“Singh”) seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of re moval, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We deny the petition.

* 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). 

# FILED

JUN 14 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh lacked credibility. The IJ found Singh was not credible, based in part on his overall demeanor ( including a lack of responsiveness to his own attorney’s questions ), and also because Singh appeared to have memorized the information from his application, including very specific dates, but could not recall or give any additional details in response to b asic follow

- up questions about these events

. The BIA added that Singh had difficulty explaining “who he feared in India, how he came to know and obtain a statement from the stranger who brought him to the hospital, why or how people from the opposing part ies would seek to harm him, why he did not file a police report after being beaten but chose to file a report after receiving phone calls, and the names of people in his political party, with whom [Singh] consulted about his continuing activities.” The re cord does not compel the conclusion that Singh was credible

. INS v. Elias

- Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 483‒84 (1992). In the alternative, substantial evidence also supports t he IJ ’s conclusion that even if Singh were credible, the minor , sporadic incidents he recounted were unfortunate harassment but did not rise to the level of persecution

. S ee Wakkary

v. Holder , 558 F.3d 1049, 1059 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Persecution is an extreme concept that does not include every sort of treatment our soc iety regards as offensive.” (quotation omitted) ); Haxha v. Ashcroft , 319 F.3d 1179, 1181

‒ 82 (9th Cir. 2003) (unfulfilled threats and one beating where respondent suffered facial bruising and broken ribs did not compel finding of persecution )

. The record a lso3

supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh did not demonstrate that the phone callers had the “will or ability to carry out [ the ] threats.” See Kaiser v. Ashcroft , 390 F.3d 653, 658 (9th Cir. 2004)

. Moreover, t he IJ also found that Singh could safely relocate within India, and that it was reasonable for him to do so. See Hussain v. Rosen , 985 F.3d 634,
648

‒ 49 (9th Cir. 2021) (failure to demonstrate country

- wide targeted persecution). Contrary to Singh’s contentions, the IJ did not determine that Singh could relocate by hiding his political beliefs; instead, as the BIA explained, there was no evidence in the record suggesting that “political parties throughout India would target a low

- level supporter of the Mann party , su ch as the respondent.” With no past persecution and an ability to relocate within India, substantial evidence supports the agency’s alternative conclusion that Singh had not demonstrated a well

- founded fear of future persecution, and the agency properly de nied Singh’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of Singh’s CAT claim. The IJ concluded Singh was not credible, but even if he were, that he had not been tortured or demonstrated a likelihood of to rture in the future, or that it was more likely than not that the Indian government would consent or acquiesce to his

torture. See B.R. v. Garland , 26 F.4th 827, 845 (9th Cir. 202 2 ) (assertions of police corruption and ineffectiveness w ere insufficient to establish that a public official would more likely than not acquiesce to torture).4

In his petition to this court, Singh a dds an additional claim that the BIA abused its discretion and violated due process by den ying his last

- minute request for additional time to file a brief. Singh sought the extension to (1) review this court’s decision in Akosung v. Barr , 970 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2020 ) , and (2) to obtain records of Singh’s visit to an emergency room immediately fol lowing his merits hearing, which counsel argued would show Singh was sleep

- deprived and suffering from insomnia for weeks prior to the hearing, help ing to explain his demeanor at his hearing. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying this untimely r equest . Zetino v. Holder , 622 F.3d 1007 , 1013 (9 th Cir. 2010). Singh had several months to review Akosung and almost two years to obtain the medical records and did not present a compelling reason for why this could not be accomplished by the date the br ief was due. Nor has Singh demonstrated a due process violation from the BIA’s denial of his extension request , because he has failed to demonstrate prejudice from the denial. See G omez - Velazco v. Sessions , 879 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir. 2018). First, Singh’s motion included arguments about the impact of Akosung , so it is unclear how additional time could have impacted the outcome on that issue. Second,

e ven assuming that the emergency room records supported Singh’s explan ation of his demeanor on the date of the hearing, the IJ and BIA found alternative reasons to deny relief even if Singh were credible , which would be unaffected by this additional evidence

. In addition, the BIA explained at some length that even if the lack of sleep was a possible explanation for Singh’s demeanor at the5

hearing, the IJ’s conclusion that Singh had memorized a script from his application but was unable to deviate/respond to additional questions was also plausible and not clear ly erroneous. Singh has thus not demonstrated a likelihood that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different if the request to extend the briefing schedule had been granted.
PETITION DENIED.