NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GULINDER SINGH,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 18

- 72753

Agency No. A205

- 586

- 641

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 10, 2021 * * Seattle, Washington

Before: GOULD, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Dissent by Judge GOULD

Gulinder Singh

, a native and citizen of India

, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming th e denial of his applications for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

* 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 15 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 

# FILED

NOV 15 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 (CAT) . We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252

. W e deny the petition for

review. 1

1. S ubstantial evidence supports the Board’s den ial of asylum and

withholding of removal based on the Immigration Judge ( IJ ) ’s adverse credibility

finding and adverse demeanor finding because it was based on internal

inconsistencies in the petitioner’s testimony, lack of detail in his testimony, and non

responsiveness in his demeanor

. 2 See Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F. 3d 1034, 1044 (9th

Cir. 2010) ; see also Alam v. Garland

, 11 F.4th 1133

, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc)

( “[O]ur review will always require assessing the totality of the circumstances.”) ;

Lalayan v. Garland , 4 F.4th 822, 839 (9th Cir. 2021) ( discussing the “special

deference” given to non

- verbal demeanor findings)

. The Board correctly concluded

that these grounds were not clearly erroneous.

2. S ubstantial evidence also supports the Board’s determination that

Singh’s corroborating evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate the adverse

1 We deny t he government’s motion for administrative closure , Dkt. 36, without prejudice to the parties ’ ability to seek appropriate re lief before the agency

. Consequently, we direct the Clerk to stay issuance of the mandate for 30 days in

order to allow time for the parties to accomplish administrative reopening

.

2 We consider only the grounds relied upon by the Board, Singh v. Holder , 649 F.3d 1161, 1164 n.6 (9th Cir. 2011), “review[ing] the IJ’s decision to the extent incorporated

, ” Medina

- Lara v. Holder , 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014). Factual findings, including credibility determinations, are reviewed for substantial evidence.

See Ahmed v. Keisler , 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007)

.3 credibility finding. See Wang v. Sessions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1 009 (9th Cir. 2017)

( finding , in the absence of credible testimony

, “ the remaining evidence in the record

is insufficient to carry [ the petitioner’s] burden of establishing eligibility for relief ”).

3. Because Singh could not establish his eligibility fo r asylum, his

withholding of removal claim was properly denied on the same bas e s. See Huang

v. Holder , 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014)

. Nor did Singh carry his burden of

establishing his entitlement to relief under the CAT . T he evidence in the recor d in

no way compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Singh would suffer

harm rising to the level of torture “by government officials or private actors with

government acquiescence” if returned to Ind i a. Arrey v. Barr , 916 F.3d 1149, 1160

(9th Cir. 2019) ; see also Singh v. Ashcroft , 351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir. 2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.4 GOULD, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

I respectfully dissent and would g rant the motion for administrative closure

. 

# FILED

NOV 15 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS