NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARPREET SINGH,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-1186

Agency No.

A209-171-321

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 11, 2023**

San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Harpreet Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(BIA’s) order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) decision 

denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

* 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 17 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-1186

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have jurisdiction pursuant 

to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.

1. We conclude substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse 

credibility determination. The IJ determined that Petitioner’s testimony was not 

credible, in part because he belatedly reported an incident in which Indian 

policemen allegedly kidnapped him, tortured him, and falsely arrested him for a 

drug crime. Petitioner did not include this information in his credible fear 

interview, asylum application, or initial personal declaration, but rather raised it 

for the first time in a second personal declaration submitted two months before 

his removal hearing was scheduled to take place. Petitioner offered various 

explanations for his late disclosure, but the IJ did not find those explanations 

plausible, and considering the totality of the evidence, a reasonable adjudicator 

would not be “compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Nasrallah v. Barr, 140 

S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Though 

Petitioner argues the IJ improperly determined his testimony per se lacked 

credibility because it included more details than he gave in his asylum 

application, Petitioner’s late disclosure did more than supplement his asylum 

application—it introduced a wholly new basis for relief that was either false or 

showed that Petitioner had not provided a reliable account during his credible 

1 The BIA considered the CAT claim waived because Petitioner did not 

contest the IJ’s CAT determination, and Petitioner raises no arguments on 

appeal to our court concerning his CAT claim.
3 22-1186

fear interview and on his asylum application. Either way, the new disclosure 

supported an adverse credibility finding. Moreover, the IJ’s adverse credibility 

determination relied on several other discrepancies, implausibilities, and 

omissions, findings that were supported by substantial evidence.

Petitioner’s arguments regarding other aspects of the IJ’s adverse 

credibility determination are similarly ill-fated. The record contradicts his

argument that the IJ had no basis for finding Petitioner testified that villagers 

brought him to the hospital after Badal Party members attacked him, and the IJ 

could properly give less weight to a non-contemporaneous medical document 

that Petitioner submitted. See Matter of Pineda, 20 I. & N. Dec. 70, 73 (B.I.A. 

1989).

2. We also conclude the BIA did not err in denying Petitioner’s due 

process claim. In evaluating mistranslation claims, this court has identified 

three types of evidence that “tend to prove a translation was incompetent”: (1) 

“direct evidence of incorrectly translated words,” (2) “unresponsive answers by 

the witness,” and (3) “the witness’s expression of difficulty understanding what 

is said to him.” Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d 773, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). On 

appeal to this court, Petitioner argues mistranslations by his interpreter “caused 

the IJ to believe Mr. Singh was repeating factual allegations regarding his claim 

for political asylum, when in fact he was not.” Petitioner does not elaborate on 

what this statement means, and he does not identify any direct mistranslation or 

evidence of unresponsive answers or confusion. Because Petitioner has failed 
4 22-1186

to identify any evidence of mistranslation, his claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.