NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.

Gurpreet 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 removal, 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 APPEALS
2

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 basic 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 parties 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 record 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 the 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. See 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 society 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 also 
3

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, the 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, such 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 

denied 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 torture 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. 2022) (assertions of 

police corruption and ineffectiveness were insufficient to establish that a public 

official would more likely than not acquiesce to torture). 
4

In his petition to this court, Singh adds an additional claim that the BIA 

abused its discretion and violated due process by denying 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 following his 

merits hearing, which counsel argued would show Singh was sleep-deprived and 

suffering from insomnia for weeks prior to the hearing, helping to explain his 

demeanor at his hearing. The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying this 

untimely request. Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1013 (9th 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 brief 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 Gomez-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, 

even assuming that the emergency room records supported Singh’s explanation 

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 the 
5

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 clearly 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.