N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M ANJIT KAUR M AJOR ; VARINDER SINGH, Pe titione rs, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t . No. 10-73111 Age n c y Nos. A070-195-341

A071-614-138 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 9, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, GOULD, a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s. M anjit Ka

ur M a jor (“ M a jor” ) and he r son Va

rinde r Singh, na

tive s and c itiz e ns of India , pe tition for re v ie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm ing a

n im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of the i r a pplic ations for 

# FIL ED SEP 23 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at 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).a djustm e nt of sta tus, a sy lum , withholding of re m o va l, prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ), and m otion to re m a n d . M a jor 1 ra ise s the following issue s on a

ppe a l: (1) whe the r the B IA e rre d in de ny ing M a jor’ s a djustm e nt of sta

tus a pplic ations ba se d on he r m arria ge s to M r. Jim m y M a j or (“ M r. M a jor” ) and M r. M a da

njit Nijja r (“Nijja r” ); (2) whe the r substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the

B IA’ s de nia l of M a

jor’ s a sy lum a

pplic at ion; (3) whe t

he r substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the

B IA’ s de nia l of M a

jor’ s C A T re lie f; a

nd (4) whe the r the B IA a buse d its disc re tion in de ny ing M a jor’ s m otion to re m and. I M a jor c onte nds tha

t the B IA e rre d in de ny ing he r a d justm e nt of sta

tus a pplic ation ba se d on he r m arria ge to M r. M a j or be c a use M r. M a

jor’ s de ath a fte r m arria ge did not de

prive he r of e ligibility

to a djust sta

tus, a nd be c a use the DHS
m isguide d he r in c onne c t i on with the withdra wing of he r a

p plic ation. W e re

je c t this a rgum e nt for se ve ra l re a sons. TheB IA did not de ny M a jor’ s a pplic ation be c a use M r. M a

jor die d, but be c a

use M a jor withdre w he r a

pplic ation a

nd a d m itte d that he r m arria ge wa s pure ly

for the purpose of obta ining he r le ga l pe rm ane nt re side nc y . Also, M a

jor’ s a rgum e nt tha

t the DHS m isguide d he r into withdra wing

1 W e only

a d dre s s M a

jor’ s e l igibility for re lie f, be c a use Va rinde r Singh’ s re lie f sole ly

de rive s from h i s m othe r M a jor’ s a pplic ations. 2he r a

pplic ation wa s not ra ise d be fore the IJ or in he r ope ning brie f be fore the B IA. W e do not ha

ve subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion to c o nside r a c l a im not prope rly ra ise d in a d m inistra tive proc e e dings. Se rrano v . Gonzale s , 469 F.3d 1317, 1319 (9th C ir. 2006). M a jor is ine ligibleto a d

just sta tus ba se d on he r late r m arria ge to Nijja r, be c a use INA § 245(d) ba

rs he r from

a djusting sta

tus on a ny ba s is othe r tha

n m arria ge to the Unite d State s c i tiz e n who pe titione d for he r K-1 visa
. C hoin v
. Muk ase y , 537 F.3d 1116, 1119 n.4 (9th C ir. 2008) (“ T he re is no que stion tha t the pla i n la ngua ge of [INA § 245(d)] ba rs K visa h olde rs from

a d justing to pe

rm ane n t re side nt sta

tus on a ny ba sis othe r tha

n the m a rria ge to the c itiz e n who pe titione d on the i r be ha lf.” ). The B IA did not e rr in de ny ing M a jor’ s a djustm e nt of sta

tus a pplic ations. I I M a jor c onte nds tha

t the B IA’ s “ a dve rse c re dibility finding or [M a

jor’ s] a lle ge d inc o he re nc y

is not supporte d by substa ntia l e vide n c e .” Whe re , a s he re , the B IA ha s a ffirm e d the IJ’ s findings of fa c t an d a dde d c om

m e n ts of its own, we re vie w both de c i sions. Lope z-C ardona v
. Holde r , 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th C ir. 2011). Norm a lly , we re vie w a n a dve rse c re d ibility

finding for substa

ntia l e vide nc e . J

iang v . Holde r , 611 F.3d 1086, 1091 (9th C ir. 2010). Howe ve r, our 3pre c e de nt is c le ar that an a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination m

ust be e xplic i t, not im plic it. Me ndoza Manimbao v. Ashc roft , 329 F.3d 655, 658–59 (9th C ir. 2003) (holding tha

t the IJ m ust m ake e xplic it c re dibility findings); Shoafe ra v . IN S , 228 F.3d 1070, 1074 n.3 (9th C i r. 2000) (“ [T] he la w of this c i rc uit doe s not pe rm it im plic it a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm i nations.” ); Aguile ra-C ota v . IN S , 914 F.2d 1375, 1383 (9th C ir. 1990) (“ The m e re sta te m e n t tha

t a pe titione r is ‘ not e ntire ly c re d ible ’ is not e nough.” ). He re , we do not re a d the IJ’ s de c ision or theB IA’ s de c ision a s m aking a

ny e xplic it a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination. As the

B IA sta te d: The Im

m igration Judgenote d the m ultiplesignific a

nt disc re pa

nc ie s and m ate ria l inc onsiste nc ie s in there c ord, be twe e n the te stim o ny , the a pplic ations, a

nd the othe r doc um e n ta

ry e vide n c e . The Im

m igration Judge de te rm ine d tha

t the a sy lum

c la im s we re inc ohe re nt, a nd he wa s not sure what to be lie ve , due to the signific ant disc re pa nc ie s a nd inc onsiste nc ie s a

nd the ina bility of the re sponde nts to a d e q uate ly e xpla in the disc re pa

nc ie s in there c ord. W e a ffirm the Im m igration Judge ’ s de c ision. Se ve ra l a s pe c ts of in M a

jor’ s proof re nde re d he r a sy lum c la im inc ohe re nt. First, M a jor’ s m e m

be rship of theAka l i Da l pa rty is a ke y to he r a sy lum

c la im , but he r writte n a

pplic ation a

nd te stim ony

c o nflic t on whe the r she wa s a m e m be r. M a j or’ s writte n a

pplic ation sa i d tha

t she “ be c am e a

m e m be r of the pa

rty ” on April 13, 1990, but c ontra

ry to tha t sta te m e nt, she te stifie d tha

t she wa s not a

m e m be r.
4At the e n d of the he aring, the IJ ga v e M a jor a d e q uate opportunitie s to e xpla in this inc o nsiste nc y , but shewa s una ble to do so. Se c ond, the the m e of M a

jor’ s politic a l pe rse c ution story shifte d be twe e n he r writte n a pplic at ion a

nd he r te stim ony . He r writte n a pplic at ion stre sse d tha

t she wa s a m e m be r of the Aka l i Da l pa

rty and wa s pe rse c ute d

be c a use of he r politic a l a c tivitie s. B ut a

t the he a ring, he r story

shifte d to foc us on Sa

twa nt Singh. M a

jor’ s de c e a se d first husba

nd wa s Ha

rjit Singh (“ Singh” ), an d his brothe r-in-la w wa s Sa twa nt Singh, who alle g e dly

a ssa ssina te d Prim e M iniste r Indira Ga ndhi. The nam e Satwa

nt Singh did not a

ppe ar in M a

jor’ s writte n a

p plic ation, but be c am e the foc u s of he r pe rse c ution story at the a sy lum

he aring. If M a

j or’ s a rre st wa s be c a

use of he r fam ily c o nne c t ion to Sa twa nt Singh, it is inc om

p re he nsible why

she did not e ve n m e ntion Sa

twa nt’ s nam e in he r writte n a pplic ation. M a

jor’ s ne w story

a bout Sa twa nt Singh a l so wa s inc ohe re nt, a s the IJ found. M a jor sta te d tha t Singh we n t out for ga the rings with Sa

twa nt in 1990, but on c

ross-e xam ination, theDHS’ s c ounse l a ske d how Sa

twa nt c ould go out with Singh in 1990 if Sa twa nt wa s ha nge d be fore 1990. M a

jor the n c ha

nge d he r te stim ony

sta ting tha t othe rs from the p arty use d to go by

Sat want’ s na m e . B ut M a

j or ha d c onfirm e d e arlie r that the Sa twa nt Singh whom

Singh we nt out with wa s the Sat want Singh who kille d Prim e M iniste r Gandhi. 5Third, M a jor a nd he r de c e a se d husba

nd Singh’ s fathe r Avta

r Singh we re una ble a ffirm ative ly

to te stify whe the r it wa s m ilita

nts or thepolic e who kille d Singh. In sum , substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the B IA’ s de te rm ination tha

t M a jor’ s a sy lum c la im s we re inc ohe re nt. III The gove rnm e n t a

rgue s tha t M a jor did not e xha

ust he r C AT c la im

be c a use M a j or “ m e re ly

a sse rte d in thefirst pa

ra gra ph” of he r brie f be fore the B IA that she a ppe a ls the IJ’ s de nia l of he r C AT re lie f. W e have pre viously he ld tha t a C AT c la im is e xha u ste d a s long a s a

pe titione r m e ntions his or he r C AT c la im in the brie f, be c a

use the B IA is on notic e tha t the pe titione r is c ha lle nging theIJ’ s C AT de te rm i nation. Se e Ade n v . Holde r , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th C ir. 2009); Zhang v
. Ashc roft , 388 F.3d 713, 721 (9th C ir. 2004). He re , M a jor m e n tione d in he r brie f that she wa s c ha lle nging theIJ’ s de nia l of he r a sy lum unde r C AT, so M a

jor ha s e xha uste d he r C AT c la im
. The gove rnm e n t a lso a

rgue s tha t M a jor wa ive d he r C A T c h a lle nge on a ppe a l be fore us be c a

use she did not m ake any

argum e nts tha

t she m e t the burde n

of proof in he r ope ning brie f. Although M a jor’ s a rgum e nts in support of he r C AT c la im we re spa rse , she did a

rgue tha t she wa s e ligiblefor C AT re lie f in he r ope ning brie f. W e c onc l ude tha

t M a jor did not waive he r C AT c la im
.

6W e turn to them e rits of M a jor’ s C AT c la im . To be e ligible for withholding of re m ova l unde r C A T, a

n a pplic ant m

ust prove tha

t “ h e [or she ] is m ore like ly tha n not to suffe r inte ntiona lly -inflic te d c rue l a nd inhum an tre atm e nt” in the c ountry of re m ova l. N

uru v . Gonzale

s , 404 F.3d 1207, 1221 (9th C ir. 2005) (c ita tion omitte d). C A T c la im s a re “ ana lytic a lly se pa

ra te from c la im s for a sy lum unde r INA.” K

amalthas v . IN

S, 251 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th C i r. 2001). In de te rm i ning a

n im m igra nt’ s e ligibility

for C AT re lie f, the B IA sha ll c onside r “ a ll e vide nc e re le va

nt to thepossibility

of future torture .” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(3). He re , the B IA wa s sile n t

a s to its re a s on for de ny ing M a j or’ s C AT re lie f. Whe n the B IA is sile nt a s to its re a son for de ny i ng a C AT c la im , we look to the IJ’ s opinion “ a s a

guide to wha

t la y be hind theB IA’ s c onc l usion.” Afriy iev . Holde r , 613 F.3d 924, 937 (9th C ir. 2010) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c ita tion om i tte d). He re , the IJ de nie d M a jor’ s C A T c l a im

for the sam e re a son tha

t he de nie d he r a s y lum

and withholding of re

m ova l c la i m s: num e rous signific ant disc re pa nc ie s be twe e n

M a jor’ s a pplic at ion, te stim ony , a

nd the doc um e nta

ry e vide nc e re nde re d he r c la i m inc ohe re nt. M ore ove r, a lthough the e vide n c e re lating to M a jor’ s a s y lum

and C AT c la im s substa

ntia lly ove rla p, the IJ did c o nside r e vide nc e spe c ific a lly

re lating to M a

jor’ s C AT c la im , inc luding India ’ s c ountry c onditions tha

t the IJ re fe rre d to a s “ ge ne ra l ba c kground m ate ria ls the purpose of 7whic h is to provide c o nte xt for M s. Ka

ur’ s c l a im s.” C

f. K amalthas , 251 F.3d a

t 1284 (gra nting pe tition for re vie w be c a use the B IA fa ile d to c onside r re le v ant c ountry c onditions). W e are una

ble to find tha

t this e vide nc e “ c om

pe l[s] a diffe re nt c onc lusion from the one re a c he d by

the B IA.” Zhe ng v . Holde r , 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th C ir. 2011). B e c a use the IJ ha s c onside re d a ll re le v ant e vide nc e re lating to M a

jor’ s C AT c l a im , a

nd be c a u se nothing in the

re c ord c om

p e ls us to re ve rse the IJ’ s de nia l of M a jor’ s C AT re lie f, we de ny the pe tition with re s pe c t to this c la im
. IV M a jor fina lly

c onte nds tha

t the B IA e rre d

in de ny i ng he r m otion to a dm it ne w e vide nc e . M a

jor’ s m o tion for theIJ to c o nside r ne w e vide n c e is a m otion to re ope n . Oy e niran v . Holde r , 672 F.3d 800, 808 (9th C ir. 2012). A m otion to re ope n file d while an a lie n’ s re m ova l proc e e ding is on a ppe a l be fore the B IA will be tre ate d a s a m otion to re m and the proc e e dings to the IJ. 8. C .F.R . §§ 1003.2(b)(1) a

nd (c )(4); Mov

sisian v
. Ashc roft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1097 (9th C ir. 2005). W e re vie w the B IA’ s de nia l of a m o tion to re m and for a

buse of disc re tion. C ano-Me rida v . IN

S , 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th C ir. 2002). He re , the B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing M a jor’ s m o tion to re m and be c a

use she did not show tha

t the pre viously

una va ila ble e v ide nc e c ould 8not ha

ve be e n disc ove re d

or pre se nte d at the form e r he aring. IN S v . Dohe rty , 502 U.S. 314, 324 (1992); se e also N ajmabadi v . Holde r , 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th C ir. 2010). All e ve nts de sc ribe d in thene w e vide n c e took pla c e be fore M a jor’ s a sy lum he aring on De c e m

be r 11, 2008, a

nd M a jor ga v e no e xpla

nation of why

she c ould not ha ve subm itte d

the ne w e v i de nc e be fore he r a sy lum he aring. The B IA ha s broa d disc re tion in de ny i ng re m and m otions. IN S v . Abudu , 485 U.S. 94, 108 (1988). W e c onc lude tha t the B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing M a jor’ s m otion to re m and. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D .

9