UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

VARINDER SINGH, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States 

Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

No. 13-9566 

(Petition for Review)

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

 

Before TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge, PORFILIO, Senior Circuit Judge, and 

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. 

 

 Varinder Singh, a Sikh native and citizen of India, claims that he will be 

persecuted on account of his membership in a Sikh political party if he is returned to 

India. The immigration judge (IJ) denied his applications for asylum, restriction on 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), and the Board of 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral 

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 11, 2014

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
- 2 - 

Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. He now petitions for review by 

this court. Exercising jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), we deny review. 

 The IJ found that Mr. Singh was not a credible witness because his testimony 

at his hearing was internally inconsistent and was inconsistent with his application, 

his sworn credible-fear statement, and affidavits he submitted. The inconsistencies 

so troubled the IJ that he carefully considered the government’s argument to deem 

the application frivolous, barring Mr. Singh from immigration relief for his lifetime. 

Characterizing the issue as “a close call,” the IJ “[found] by the slimmest of evidence 

there is no frivolous application in this case.” Admin. R. at 21. But the IJ denied all 

relief because of Mr. Singh’s lack of credibility. 

 The BIA discussed certain inconsistencies that the IJ had identified and held 

that the credibility finding was not clearly erroneous. It stated that Mr. Singh had not 

satisfied his burden of proof for asylum or restriction on removal because he had not 

submitted any “evidence or testimony independent of his own non-credible 

testimony.” Id. at 4. The BIA also stated that Mr. Singh’s lack of credibility was 

“fatal to his CAT claim.” Id. Accordingly, it dismissed his appeal. 

 In this case it is the BIA’s order that we review. See Uanreroro v. Gonzales, 

443 F.3d 1197, 1204 (10th Cir. 2006). “[W]e will not affirm on grounds raised in the 

IJ decision unless they are relied upon by the BIA in its affirmance.” Id. “However, 

when seeking to understand the grounds provided by the BIA, we are not precluded 

from consulting the IJ’s more complete explanation of those same grounds.” Id. 
- 3 - 

 We review the agency’s findings of fact, including credibility determinations, 

for substantial evidence. Id. “Where the BIA’s decision relies upon an IJ’s initial 

findings, we must ensure that such determinations are substantially reasonable.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted). The agency must give “specific, cogent reasons 

for disbelieving” an applicant’s testimony. Elzour v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 1143, 1150 

(10th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). We do not reweigh the 

evidence, see Yuk v. Ashcroft, 355 F.3d 1222, 1236 (10th Cir. 2004), and “the 

administrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator 

would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). 

 Under the asylum statute, the agency must consider “the totality of the 

circumstances, and all relevant factors” in making a credibility determination. 

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). But the statute specifically authorizes the agency to 

base a credibility determination on . . . the consistency between the 

applicant’s or witness’s written and oral statements (whenever made and 

whether or not under oath, and considering the circumstances under 

which the statements were made), the internal consistency of each such 

statement, [and] the consistency of such statements with other evidence 

of record . . . . 

Id.; see also id. § 1229a(c)(4)(C) (same in removal-proceedings statute). Further, the 

agency may discredit an applicant’s testimony about significant incidents where the 

applicant did not disclose that information at earlier stages in the proceedings. 

See Ismaiel v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 1198, 1205-06 (10th Cir. 2008). 

 Here, the agency gave specific, cogent reasons for finding Mr. Singh 

incredible. The BIA highlighted several inconsistencies in Mr. Singh’s testimony, 
- 4 - 

including how several aspects of his testimony at the hearing differed from his 

previous statements. It also noted that Mr. Singh testified about a significant incident 

with a police officer that he had never before mentioned, and he testified about 

problems his father experienced, problems that were not described in his father’s own 

affidavit. The inconsistencies and the omission are proper credibility factors and are 

supported by substantial evidence in the record. Also, the BIA considered 

Mr. Singh’s explanations for the discrepancies, but found them unpersuasive. We 

cannot conclude that the agency’s credibility findings were substantially 

unreasonable or that any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude that 

Mr. Singh must be considered a credible witness. Mr. Singh’s arguments to the 

contrary would require us to reweigh the evidence, which we do not do. 

 As the BIA stated, Mr. Singh’s case for asylum, restriction on removal, and 

CAT relief hinged upon his credibility. In light of the credibility determination, the 

BIA also did not err in denying relief. 

 The petition for review is denied. 

 Entered for the Court 

 John C. Porfilio 

 Senior Circuit Judge