T he H o no rable Jero m e Fa rr i s, Se ni o r U ni t ed Stat es C i rcui t Jud ge f o r t he C o urt o f A p p eal s f o r t he N inth * C i rcui t , s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n.

NOT RECOMMENDED F OR PUBL I CATI ON

File Na me: 09a0561n.06 No. 08-3842 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT

AB I NDERB I R SI

NGH, Petitioner,

v. ERI C HOL DER, United States Attorney Ge ne ra l, Re sp on de nt.

__________________

_ _ _ ________________ )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW FROM THE B OA RD OF I MMI GR

AT I ON APP EA L S

OPI NI ON

Be for e : G ILM AN , C OOK , a nd F ARRI S, C ir c uitJudg e s. * RONALD LEE GILMA N, Circuit Judge. Abinderbir Singh, a native and citiz en of India, lawfully enter ed the United States in Mar ch 1999 as a temporar y visitor. He filed a

n application four months later for a sy lum, withholding of remova l, a nd relief under the Convention Ag ainst Torture (CAT), c laiming political and r elig ious persec ution in I ndia base d on his being a member of the Sikh relig ion. I n 2 0 06, an I mmigration J udg e (I J ) conduc ted a he aringon the ca se and de nied Singh’ s application, finding that Singh was not c redible. The B oard of I mmigration Appeals (B I A) a ffirme d the I J ’s dec ision, and Singh appea led. For the rea sons se t forth below, we DENY Singh’s pe tition for r eview.No. 08-3842

Singh v. Holder

-2- I. BACKG ROUND A. F ac tu al bac kgr ound Singh was ra i s ed i n t h e S i k h relig ious tradition in the Amritsar District of Punjab, I ndia. Whil e a stu de nt i n c oll e g e , he joi ne d the “ Al l- I nd ia Sik h Stu de nt F e de ra

tio n” (A I SSF ). At

the me ri ts hear ing be fore the I J , Singh testified that the A I SSF is an org anization dedicated to pr omoting the Sikh religion among stude nts, and that it is a “very peac eful party .” Part of Sing h’s re sponsibili ties was distributing r elig ious lit erature. I n connec tion with his activities, he wa s alleg edly arr ested by the police in Apr il 1984. He testified at the hear ing that he wa s taken to the police station, held for three day s, and beaten. The police war ned him not to dist ribute any more re ligious literatur e. Singh was arr ested ag ain by the police later in 1984 as a result of clashe s betwee n the I ndian

a rm y a nd Sik h r e lig iou s le a de rs in P un

ja b. Th e I nd ian a rm y ra

ns a c ke d the Go lde n T e mpl e , th e ma in pla c e of Sik h w o r s h i p , a n d a r r e s t e d h u n dr e d s o f

S i kh s f r o m t h e r e g i o n , i n c l u d i n g S i n g h a n d his cousin. Singh testified that he was pr esent duringthe ransa cking of the Temple, a nd that “thre e or four” Sikhs we re killed. A fter be ing a rre sted, he wa s held in a “c amp” a nd alleg edly

beate n “in the

mor nin g a nd e ve nin g .” He wa s r e le a se d a lmo st a we e k la te r, a ft e r b e ingwa

rn e d a g a in n ot t o distribute relig ious lit erature. Af ter these incidents, the AI SSF was dec lare d to be an illeg al

or g a nizatio n b y

the I nd ian g ov e rn me nt. Sin g h th e n le ft the Pun ja b r e g ion a nd we nt t o li ve in Calcutta for

a y ear and a ha lf. He r eturne d to Punjab when a Sikh-led g overnme nt came to powe r in the reg ion. I n 1989, Singh joined Shiromani Akali Dal, a political party active in the Punjab reg ion that advocated a se parate Sikh state. He e ventually beca me the vice president of the rura l are as in thatNo. 08-3842

Singh v. Holder

-3- org anization. I n September 1995, Sing h was a rre sted and de tained for four da y s beca use he a g itated for the r elea se fr om prison of another party officia l. Singh testi fied that he was interr og ated, be aten by a stick, and hungupside down while in custo d y . His father arr ang ed for

his relea se by

bribing police off icer s. I n 1994, Singh’s infant son died i n an incident involving the pol i ce . S i n gh testified at the hear ing that he and his family wer e driving t hroug h a checkpoint about two or three kilometer s from Amritsar, his hometown. The police re cog nized him as a party leade r, followed him in a Jeep af ter he we nt throug h the checkpoint, and ordered him to stop. Singh and his wife were then told to step

o u t o f th e c a r . A s h is w if e w a s g e tt in g o u t, th e p o li c e p u ll e d h e r . I n th e e n s u in g “ s c u f f le , ” th e s ixmonth-old infant was droppe d on the g round and se ri o u s l y injured. The Sing hs broug ht their son to a fa mil y do c tor fo r t

re a tme nt, bu t th e c hil d d id n ot s ur viv e . Si ng h d id n ot f

ile a c omp la int

wi th t h e p o l i c e a

b o u tt h e d e a t h , b u td i d

i n f o r m h i s p a rt y. I n 1998, Singh was ag ain arrested and detained for three day s afte r he went to the “SDM,” a “subdivision district” in the re g ion “re sponsible for law,” to complain about the arre st of his uncle. Singh testified that he was peac eful while at the SDM office , but the police ca me to his home that eveningand ar

rested him. After he w as re lease d, the police visited Singh’ s home ag ain, but he wa s

no t th e re a t th e tim e . Si ng h te sti fi e d th a t th e po lic e me n to ld h is f a the r t hat th e y we re the re to a

rr e st Sin g h a g a in b e c a

us e the y su sp e c te d th a t he wa s h os tin g a me e tin g of

mil ita nts a t hi s h ome . Af

ra id to go home , Singh lef

t for a ne ighbor ing town. F rom there , he obtained a tourist visa and enter ed the Un ite d St a te s. B. Pr ocedural historyNo. 08-3842

Singh v. Holder

-4- T h e go v er n m ent initiated r emoval proce eding s ag ainst Singh in January 2000

. S i n gh appea red be fore the immigration court and c oncede d remova bility

. His case was initially set to be he a rd in San F ra

nc isc o, bu t wa s lat e r tr a ns fe rr e d to Mic hig a n, wh e re he re sid e s. I n a dd iti on to h is own testimony , Singh’s wif e and his c ousin provided evidenc e at Sing h’s hea ring

. At the end of

the hea rin g, t h e I J d el i v ered an ora l opinion in which she found Singh not

cre dible and denie d his application for a sy lum, withholdi ng of re moval, and re lief under the CAT. The I J based he r cr edibility finding on an ex haustive l ist of inconsistencies betwe en Singh’ s written asylum application and his hear ing testimony

. She also conclude d that even if Singh wa s cre dible, he had n o r e a s o n a

b le b a s is to f

e a r c o u n tr y w id e p e r s e c u ti o n in I n d ia b e c a u s e Si n g h te s ti f

ie d at the h e a r i n g t h at h e wa s ab l e to re l o ca t e to C al cu t t a fo r on e an d a ha l f y ea rs wi t h o u t i n ci d en t
. T h e IJ there fore denied Sing h’s application on this alternative g round as we ll. Fo l l o wi n g S i n gh ’s ap p ea l , t h e BI A af fi rm ed t h e I J ’s d ec i s i o n , co n cl u d i n g t h at h er fi n d i n gs of fa c t, i nc lud inghe r a sse ssm e nt o f S ing h’ s c re dib ili ty , w e re no t c le a rl y e rr on e ou s. I t f

ound that the principa l shortcomings a nd inconsistencies c i t ed by the I mmi g ratio n Jud g e a re pr e se nt in the re c or d, a re su bs tanti a l and

g o to the hea rt of the r espondent’s a sy lum claim, and have not be en adequately

explained by

the re spondent. Th e B I A a lso fo un d th a t Sin g h f a ile d to su

bmi t r e a so na

bly a va ila ble c or ro bo rativ e e vid e nc e . T his timely appea l followed.

II. AN AL YSI S A. Stand ard of reviewNo. 08-3842

Singh v. Holder

-5- “B eca use the B I A adopted the I J ’s dec i s i o n wi t h additional commentar y , we r eview the decision of the I J , as supplemented by the B I A, as the f

inal administrative orde r.” Ceraj v. Muk asey , 511 F.3d 583, 588 ( 6th Cir. 2007). Qu es tions of law involving immigr ation proce eding s are revie wed de novo. Al i v . A sh c ro ft , 366 F.3d 407, 409 ( 6th Cir. 2004). The I J ’s factual findings, on the other ha

nd, including a

deter mination that the petitioner failed to e stablish eligibility for a sy lum or withholding of

remova l, will not be dist urbed if substanti al evidenc e supports such deter minations . INS v. Elias-Zacarias , 5 0 2 U. S

. 4 7 8 , 4 8 1 (1 9 9 2 ) ( h o l d i n g t h at a f ac t fi n d er ’s ru l i n gs will be upheld if “suppor ted b y re asonable, substantial, and probative e vidence on the re cord consi d er ed as a whole” (citation omitted)). Unde r this standard, we will not reverse a fa ctual deter mination of the I J unless we fi n d “that the evidence not only supports a contra

ry conclusion, bu t c om pe ls it.” Ma rk

u v . A sh c ro

ft , 380 F.3d 982, 986 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (emphasis in orig inal). B. The statutory fram ework Under the I mmigration and Nationality Act (I NA), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b), the U.S. A t t o rn ey Gene ral ha s d is c r e ti o n to g r a n t a s y lum t o a r e f u g e e . T h e d is p o s it io n o f

a n a p p li c a ti o n f

o r a sy lum inv olv e s a tw o- ste p in qu ir

y : ( 1) wh e the r t

he a pp lic a nt qu a lif

ie s a s a “ re fu g e e ” a s de fi ne d in 8 U .S. C. § 1101(a) (42)( A), a

nd (2) whe th er t h e ap p l i cant “ merits a fa vorable exercise of

discretion by

the A tt o r n e y G e n e ral.” Per kovic v . I NS , 3 3 F. 3 d

6 1 5 , 6 2 0 (6 t h C i r. 1 9 9 4 ) ( ci t i n g INS v. CardozaFonseca , 480 U.S. 421, 428 n.5 (1987)). Section 1101(a) 942)(A) of the I NA define s a “re fug ee” as an alien w ho is unable or unwilling to retu rn t o h i s home country “bec ause of

perse cution or a w ell-founde d fea r of pe rsec ution on

acc ount of rac e, re ligion, nationality , membership in a particula r social g roup, or political opinion.”No. 08-3842

Singh v. Holder

-6- An applica

nt may there fore establish elig ibilit y for a sy lum by

showing that he or she (1) has suffe red past perse cution, or (2) has a w ell-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution. 8 C.F.R. § 20 8

. 1 3 (b ). The burden is on the a

pplicant to establish that he or she qualifies as a refug ee. 8 C.F .R. § 1208.13(a). I f cr edible, the a

pplicant’s testimo n y “may be suff icient to sustain the burden of proof without

corr oboration.” 8 C.F .R. § 1208.13(a). On c e the a

pp lic a nt sh ow s that he or sh e ha s su ff e re d fr om pa st pe rs e c uti on , the a pp lic a nt i s presumed to have a well-founde d fea r of future pe rsec ution. Mi k ha ile v itc h v . I

NS , 146 F.3d 384, 389 (6th Cir. 1998). This presumption can be rebutted by the gover nment only throug h establishing by a prepondera

nce of the evidence that, since the perse cution occur red, c onditions i n the applica nt’s home country

have c hang ed to such a

n extent that the applicant no l ong er has a we ll-founded f ear of beingperse cuted if he or she we re to re turn. Id. C. The IJ ’s c r e dibil it y findi ng The I J ’s opinion contains an exhaustive analy sis of Si n gh ’s ap p lication. We shall outline only the main points here. Most importantly , the I J found a number of inconsistencie s reg ardingthe circ umstances surrounding the death of Singh’s son. Singh’s written application stated t h at “one p o l i ce s n at ch edm y

s o n fr o m m y wi fe an d t h re w h i m o n t h e gr o u n d

. ” B u tat t h e h ea ri n g, b o t h S i n gh and his wife te stified that his son “fell” f rom his wife’s la

p as she wa s b ei n g forc ed out of the vehicle. The I J also expressed conce rn about the two differ ent death cer tificates that Singh provide d to alleg edly

verify his son’s death, ea ch bea ring a diffe rent date of d ea t h, a diffe rent date of reg istration for t h e d eath, a nd a diffe rent plac e of de ath. Moreove r, Singh’ s written application,No. 08-3842

Singh v. Holder

-7- unlike his testimony

at the hea

ring , omitted any

ref ere nce t o t h e m ed i ca l treatment that his son

rec eived. Sing h also neve r submitted any medical r ecor ds or af

fi d av i t fr om the family

doctor

re g a rd inghis so n’ s treatmen t, e ve n th ou g h s uc h e vid e nc e wa s r e a so na bly a va ila ble be c a us e his brother, a United S tates citi zen, had been t o I ndia and back twice between 1996 and the date of the hear ing. The I J further found that Singh’s de scription of his involvement with the AI SSF was riddled with inconsistencies. Singh’s testim ony and the documents he submitted alluded to thre e diffe rent dates re g ardingwhen he joined the AI SSF. Singh als o g ave inc onsistent descriptions about the nature of th e AI SSF. I n his asy lum application, Singh desc ribed the A I SSF as a political

or g a nizatio n, a nd

sp e c if ic a lly de sc ri be d h is r ole in o rg a nizi ngthe tr a ini ngc a mps a s “ ve ry us e fu l to prea ch re ligion, cr eate political a war eness among y oung Sikhs and recr uit them in the feder ation.” But at the hear ing, he testified that the AI SSF is a student re ligious org anization that is not involved in politi cs. The I J also questioned Singh’ s char acte rization of t h e AI SSF as “pe ace ful,” “nonmilitant,” and “f

action-f ree ,” which she found to be in conf lict with t h e c o u ntry -condition repor

t for India and the te stimony of Singh’ s cousin at the hea ring

. Fi n al l y , t he I J pointed to the inconsistent testimony

of Singh a

nd his wife re g ardinghow l o n g S i n gh remained ac tive with the AI SSF. The I J a ls o f

o u n d th a t S in g h o mi tt e d

k e y d e ta il s r e g a r d in g h is a r

r e s ts
. Wi th

r e s p e c t to the Ap ri l 19 84 a rr e st, Sin g h state d in his a pp lic a tio n that he wa s in te rr og a te d b y the po lic e re g a rd inghis political activities and the sourc e of f inancial a id to the A I SSF. B ut Singh made no me ntion during his direct exam i n at i o n o f beinginterrog ated by the police, e ven af

ter his attorne y

expli citly

askedNo. 08-3842

Singh v. Holder

-8- him if this h ad o ccurred. T he I J further noted that Singh g ave inc onsistent dates as to his second

arr est in 1984. Singh also gav e co nflicting acc ounts of how many people died dur ing the Golden Temple incide nt prec eding the sec ond arr est. His written application stated that “hundre ds of inn o ce n t Sikhs” were killed, but when he testified a t the hear ing, he stated that only three or four people ha d died. Finally , the I J found that Singh g ave c onflicti n g t es t i m o n y about hi s involvement in the Shiromani Akali Dal political par ty . Singh testified at the hear ing that he held no off ice other than the vice pr esid en t o f t h e ru ra l are as. B ut in his written application, he stated that in 1990 he was elec ted the pre sident of the par ty ’s “c ooperative society ” consisting of the village s of Vac hhoa, B ath, L oh a rk a , a nd F e rv e ri a , a nd a dir e c tor fr om the Aj na la Z on e . Sin g h ma de no me nti on of t hese positions at the hearing

. Moreove r, i n his asylum application, Singh f ailed to mention being beate n wi th a sti c k a nd hungup sid e do wn

duri nghis a rr e st a

nd de te ntion in 1 99 5 in

c on ne c tio n w ithhis i n v o l v e m e n tw i t h t h e S h i r o m a n i A k a l i D a l p a rt y. I n sum, we believe that the I J ’s fac tual finding s are supported by substantial evidenc e in the

r e c ord. S

ee IN S v. Elias-Zacarias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). The I J pointed to numerous inc on sis te nc ie s w ithre g a rd to e a c h of Sin g h’ s a lle g e d inc ide nts of pe rs e c uti on , a nd so me of the se inc on sis te nc ie s g o to the he a rt of Sin g h’ s c la im a

nd cast do ub t on

his c re dib ili ty . E sp e c ia lly dama g ing to Sin g h’ s c re dib ili ty de te rm inatio n a re : (1 ) the nu me ro us inc on sis te nc ie s r e g a rd inghis membership and le vel of involvement in the AI SSF and the Shiromani Akali Da l party ; (2) the incons is ten cie s b e tw e e n h is w ri tte n a pp lic a tio n a

nd he a ri ngte sti mony

re g a rd ingthe de ta ils of

his Ap ri l 19 84 a rr e st a

nd his 19 95 a rr e st; (3 ) the c on fl ic tin g a c c ounts in t he wr itt e n a

pp lic a tio n a

nd inNo. 08-3842

Singh v. Holder

-9- the hea ring testimony

about how his son died; and (4) the two dea th cer tificates that he submitt ed to verif y h i s s o n ’s death, eac h containing signific antly differ ent information. B eca use Singh’ s

me mbe rs hip in t

he AI SSF a

nd the Shi ro mani A ka li D a l, t he a lle g e d a rr e sts , a nd

the de a th o f h is c hil d

a re c e ntr a l to his a lle g a tio ns of g ov e rn me nt p e rs e c uti on

fo r h is p a rt ic ipatio n in

Sik h o rg a nizatio ns , these inconsistenc ies direc tly aff ect his asylum claim. Se e Sy lla v . I NS , 388 F.3d 924, 926 ( 6th Cir. 2004) (“ [A] dvers e cre dibilit y finding [s] must be based on issues that g o to the hear t of the applicant’ s claim.”). The evidenc e in the rec ord thus does not “c ompel” a c ontrary conclusion to the I J ’s adve rse c redibility

deter mination. See 8 U .S. C. § 12 52 (b )( 4) (B ); Ma rk u v . A sh c ro

ft , 380 F.3d 982, 986 (6th Cir. 2004). Singh there fore failed to me et his bur den of establishing that he is a re fu gee within the statut or y de fi nit ion

of the te rm be c a

us e he did no t pr ov ide c re dib le e vid e nc e that he ha s su ff e re d p a st perse cu t ion or has a w ell-founde d fea r of f uture pe rsec ution. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) -(b)

. Be cause the I J ’s adverse credibility deter mination is supported by

substantial evidence , we ne ed not

rea ch the i s s u e o f whether the I J proper ly denied Sing h’s asylum application on the alter native g rounds that, eve n if Singh wa s cre dible, he had no rea sonable ba sis to fear c ountry wide per secution in I ndia. Sin g h’ s oth e r c la ims —f

or wi thh old ing of re mov a l a nd re lie f un de r the CA T— a re sim ila rl y without merit beca

use they eac h require a n applicant to mee t an eve n highe r burde n of proof than is ne eded to e stablish an asylum claim. See Khali li v. Holder , 557 F.3d 429, 435- 36 (6th Cir. 2009) (w ith ho ldi ngof

re mov a l) ; Ali v. Reno , 237 F.3d 591, 596-97 (6th Cir. 2001) (relief under the CAT).No. 08-3842

Singh v. Holder

-10- III . C ON CL USI ON For all of the re asons set for

th above, we DENY Singh’s pe tition for review

.