NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 72335 Agency No. A206

- 088

- 069

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 16, 2021 * * San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, W. FLETCHER, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Balwinder Singh , a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an i mmigration j udge ’s
decision den ying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.

* 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

NOV 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

§ 1252 , and we deny the petition for review.

“ We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations,
for substantial evidence. ” Garcia v. Holder , 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014).
Under th at standard, the agency’s finding of fact is conclusive unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Ren v. Holder , 648 F.3d 1079, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). In assessing an adverse credibility finding, the court must look to the “totality of the circumstances[] and all relevant fac tors.” Alam v. Garland , 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (alteration in original) ( quoti ng 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Singh was not
credible. At Singh’s hearing, he claimed for the first time that the police threated to file a false charge against him if he tried to report beatings he received from
members of the Congress Party who opposed his involvement in the Akali Dal Mann Party . Though “mer e omission of details is insufficient to uphold an adverse credibility finding,” an adverse credibility finding may be warranted when an applicant presents new allegations that tell a “more compelling” story than his initial application. Silva

- Pereira v. L ynch , 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) ( first quoting Lai v. Holder , 773 F.3d 966, 971 (9th Cir. 2014) , and then quoting
Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) )

. T he agency was not3

required to accept Singh’s explanation that he was trying to be brief in his declaration and planned to provide more details at the hearing

. See Zamanov , 649
F.3d at 974

. The agency also did not err in determining that Singh’s speculation
undermined his credibility. In response to questioning, Singh speculated that members of the Congress Party might have been responsible for a burglary of his wife’s home. Singh explained on appeal to the B oard that he had merely been “thinking out loud” and did not testify about the burglary earlier because he had no proof of the Congress Party’s involvement. The B oard did not err in rejecting Singh’s explanation of a last

- minute allegation that could be interpreted as an attempt to “artificially enhance [Singh’s] cl aims of persecution.” Iman v. Barr , 972 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020). Finally, Singh’s shifting testimony about his visa application damaged his credibility. At his hearing, Singh first testified that he had never applied for a visa
to come to the Unit ed States . When presented with his visa application, Singh testified that he did not recognize himself in the photo. Later, he admitted that he had once gone to the United States embassy to apply for a visa, but he said that he
could not remember whether h e applied for the visa before or after he joined the
Akali Dal Mann Party. Singh argues that his visa applica tion is irrelevant to his claims of persecution , b ut the B oard may support its adverse credibility finding4

with “any” non - trivial inconsistency in the record

. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 104 4 (9th Cir. 2010)

. Although t he adverse credibility finding sufficiently supports the denial of both asylum and withholding of removal, “ [a] n adverse credibility determination is

not neces sarily a death knell to CAT protection.” Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1048.
Whe n an applicant has been deemed not credible, “country conditions alone can play a decisive role in granting relief under the Convention.” Mukulumbutu v.
Barr , 977 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Ci r. 2020) (quoting Kamalthas v. INS , 251 F.3d 1279, 1280 (9th Cir. 2001)). Here, however, the evidence of country conditions submitted by Singh does not compel the conclusion that he is more likely than not
to be tortured if returned to India.
PETITION DEN IED.