NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 17

- 70028 Agency No. A205

- 587

- 181

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 7, 2021 * * Portland, Oregon Before: W. FLETCHER, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Singh cla imed that he was persecuted on account of his political

* 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

MAY 11 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

activities in India. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Singh’s testimony not credible and accorded it no weight, and the BIA affirmed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition

. The agency 1 based its adverse credibility determination primarily on three
inconsi stencies between Singh’s testimony and other evidence in the administrative
record including Singh’s own prior statements . First, the agency cited a n inconsistency regarding Singh’s medical treatment after he was allegedly beaten by
members of the Akali Dal ( Badal ) p arty (“Badal Party”) on two occasions

. Singh
submitted notes from a d octor in India that stated he was treated “in hospital” for nine and ten days , respectively

. In his testimony, however, Singh said he was
treated at home after both incidents

. When provided an opportunity to explain this discrepancy, Singh initially said that he picked up prescriptions at the hospital, and
later said that he could not remember what happened. The agency deemed th ese explanations unreasonable, and the record does not compel a contrary conclusion.
See Kin v. Holder , 595 F.3d 1050, 1054

- 55 (9th Cir. 2010). Second, the agency cited an inconsistency about whether Singh’s father is
alive and , if not, the cause of his death. Singh testified that after he was beaten by

1 We refer to the BIA and the IJ collectively as “the agency.” See Medina

Lara v. Holder , 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014) (explain ing that this court will review both the BIA and the IJ’s decisions when the BIA cites Matter of Burbano , 20 I. & N. Dec. 872 (BIA 1994)).3

Badal Party members for the second time, they told him that th ey would kill him “the way they have killed [his] father.” But during an initial border interview with CBP, Singh referred to his father in the present tense several times

. When given an opportunity to explain why he referred to his father in the present tense, Singh initially said he could not remember. Four months later at another hearing , Singh
clarified for the first time that his “ paternal grandfather brought [him] up and [he]
called him as father.” T he IJ properly rejected this explanation as unreasonable because Singh named his father

— not his grandfather

— when asked by CBP to name his parents, and he never said anything in the interview to suggest that his
references to his “father” were to his grandfather. Because this discrepa ncy “is at
the heart of [Singh’s] claim,” the agency could assign it “great weight” in assessing Singh’s credibility. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010). Third, the agency cited inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony about his politi cal activism. In his sworn declaration, Singh said he had been “working” for
the Badal Party before joining the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann (Mann) p arty (“Mann Party ” ) in 2012

. But a t his merits hearing, Singh said he n ever work ed for or join ed the Badal Party . When asked to explain the statement in his declaration , Singh clarified that he was “rubbing shoulders” with the Badal Party by attending their functions, which wa s like working for the party , but “not in [the] actual
sense.” When asked how long he was doing this with the Badal Party , Singh said4

“over a long period of time,” but he also said that he started in 2012, which was the same year that he said he joined the Mann Party . As with the inconsistency about Singh’s father, Singh’s inc onsistency on this issue goes to the “ heart of the claim ,” and it was proper for the agency to afford it significant weight. Id. In the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding of
removal applications fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 34 8 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, s ubstantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh failed to rehabilitate his discredited testimony , or otherwise meet his burden of proof , through other evidence in the record

. See Yali Wang v. Sessions , 861 F.3d 1003, 100 8

- 0 9 (9th Cir. 2017)

. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Singh failed to show it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to
India

. See Garcia

-

Milian v. Holder , 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION DENIED.