NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 immigration judge’s 

decision denying 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 APPEALS
2 

§ 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 that 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 factors.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 

(9th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (alteration in original) (quoting 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 “mere 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. Lynch, 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)). The agency was not 
3 

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 Board 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 Board 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] claims 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 United 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 he applied for the visa before or after he joined the 

Akali Dal Mann Party. Singh argues that his visa application is irrelevant to his 

claims of persecution, but the Board may support its adverse credibility finding 
4 

with “any” non-trivial inconsistency in the record. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d

1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010).

Although the adverse credibility finding sufficiently supports the denial of 

both asylum and withholding of removal, “[a]n adverse credibility determination is 

not necessarily a death knell to CAT protection.” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048. 

When 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 Cir. 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 DENIED.