N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT GURDEEP SINGH, Pe titione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 12-73447 Age n c y No. A089-679-782 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 3, 2015 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N, GOULD, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding. The B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (B IA) ide ntifie d thre e re a sons for its a dve rse c re d ibility

finding: (1) Singh pre se nte d inc onsiste nt inform a tion surrounding his politic a l m e m

be rship; (2) Singh pre se nte d inc o nsiste nt inform a tion a bout how 

# FIL ED SEP 08 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).m any

tim e s he wa s a

rre ste d a nd whe n he joine d the Sim aranjit Singh M ann Shirom ani Aka li Da l (SAD) pa rty ; a nd (3) Singh fa ile d to pre se nt c orroborating e vide nc e . 1. Singh’ s sta

te m e n ts we re inc onsiste n t be twe e n (a ) his first a sy l um a pplic a tion and a sy lum

inte rvie w a

nd (b) his se c ond a sy lum

a pplic a tion a

n d te s tim o ny

be fore the i m m igration judge(IJ) re ga

rding his m e m

be rship (or la c k

the re of) with B a

bba r Kha lsa Inte rna t iona l (B KI), a

de signa te d te rrorist orga

niz a tion. Singh wa s c onfronte d with this inc onsiste nc y . The IJ re a sona bly re je c te d Singh’ s e xpla

nation that he wa s ne rvous, noting tha t the inte rvie ws oc c urre d a c onside ra

ble tim e a fte r Singh e nte re d the Unite d State s , he brought his own inte rpre te r with him , and the a sy lum offic e r te stifie d tha t he did not a

ppe ar ne rvous. Se e Rizk

v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th C ir. 2011). There c ord doe s not c om pe l a diffe re nt c onc lusion. 2. Singh’ s sta

te m e n ts we re inc onsiste n t a bout whe n he be c am e a

m e m be r of the SAD pa

rty and how m any

tim e s he wa s a

rre ste d. The se inc o nsiste nc ie s go to the h e art of the m a tte r. S e e Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1046-47 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ Although inc onsiste nc ie s no longe r ne e d to go to the

he art of the pe titione r’ s c la im , whe n a n inc onsiste nc y is a

t the he art of the c la im it doubtle ss is of gre a t we ight.” ). Whe n c onfronte d, Singh a ga in sugge ste d tha t he wa s ne rvous 2or c ould not re m e m b e r what he told thea sy lum

offic e r. The B IA re

je c te d the se e xpla nations, noting tha

t the y we re not suffic ie nt e xpla nations for thediffe re nc e s in te stim ony . The re c ord doe s not c om pe l a diffe re nt c onc l usion. 3. Singh did not c orroborate his c la im s. Singh c ha l le nge s this de t e rm ination, c la im ing a

c re dible a

p plic ant ne e d not provide c orroboration, ba se d on pre -R EAL ID Ac t pre c e de nt. Howe ve r, unde r the R EAL ID Ac t, a n othe rwise c re dible a pplic ant m ay

still bere quire d

to providec orroborative e vide n c e . Se e Re n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079, 1090-91 (9th C ir. 2011). In his ope ning brie f, Singh did not a rgue tha t he wa s not give n a

n opportunity to provide c orroborative e vide nc e , thus wa iving this a

rgum e nt. Se e Martine

z -Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th C ir. 1996). Ac c ordingly , be c a

use the a dve rse c re dibility finding is supporte d

by substa ntia l e vide nc e , the B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha t Singh fa ile d to e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution a

nd a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution is also supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Farah v . Ashc r oft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). TheB IA a lso did not err in c onc luding tha t Singh’ s C AT c la im

fa ile d. Singh points to no othe r e vide nc e to show it is m ore like ly tha n not he would be torture d if he re turne d to India . Id . at

1156-57. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D. 3