N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DAVINDER

SINGH, Pe t i tione r,
v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-70135 Age n c y No. A087-473-270
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d

June 12, 2018 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILER , ** PAEZ, a n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Davinde r Singh pe titions for re v ie w of a n orde r of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls (B IA) a ffirm ing the de c ision of a n Im m igration Judge(IJ) de ny ing his



# FIL ED JUN 22 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble Euge ne E. Sile r, Unite d State s C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Sixth C irc uit, sitting by de signa t ion.c la im s for a sy lum , withholding of rem ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(C A T). W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. The a ge n c y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm inat ion wa s supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e . First, the IJ provide d “ ‘ s pe c ific e xam ple s’ of [Singh’ s] de m e a

nor by
m a king ‘ e xplic it re fe re n c e to pa rtic ula r unre c orde d a s pe c ts of de m e anor.’ ” Mane s
v . Se ssions , 875 F.3d 1261, 1264 (9th C ir. 2017) (pe r c uriam ) (quoting K i n v . Holde r , 595 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th C ir. 2010)). B e c a use the IJ note d in he r de c ision both the ty

pe of be hav i or involve d a s we ll a s whe n it took plac e , the IJ’ s finding that Singh’ s de m e anor unde rm ine d his c re d i bility wa s supporte d by

substa ntia l
e vide nc e . Se e id. This, in turn, “ susta ins the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i na tion.” Ling Huang v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1155 (9th C ir. 2014). Se c ond, the IJ found tha

t Singh’ s “ te stim ony

wa s fra ught with inc o nsiste nc i e s,” and the re c o rd doe s not c om pe l a c o ntra ry c onc lusion. Substa ntia l e vide nc e supports the finding tha

t Singh provide d inc onsiste n t te stim ony re ga rding the ide ntity

of the pe rson who m a de the arra nge m e n t s for his trave l to the Unite d State s, a nd the nature of his a c tivitie s in the Unite d State s. Although on a

ppe a l Singh a

tte m pts to e xpla i n a

way the se inc o nsiste nc ie s, “ [i] t
c annot be sa i d

. . . tha t the e vide nc e c om

pe ls the inte rpre tation of thee vide n c e

2a dvoc a te d by [Singh] .” Lianhua J

iang v
. Holde r , 754 F.3d 733, 740 (9th C ir. 2014). Fina lly , the IJ’ s finding tha t portions of Singh’ s te stim ony we re inhe re ntly im pla usible wa s re a sona

bly ba s e d on c o m

m on se nse de te rm inations, a nd furthe r supports the

IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm i nation. Se e 8 U.S.C
. § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). The IJ re fe re nc e d e ve ry

pie c e of Singh’ s nonte stim onia l e vide nc e in the
re c o rd and ga

ve “ spe c ific , c oge nt re a son[s] ” for a c c ording it le ss we i ght. Lin v
. Gonzale s , 434 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th C ir. 2006) (c ita tion om itte d). The IJ c ould
re a s ona bly c onc lude tha

t the va lue of the a ffidavit submi tte d by e xe c utive pa

rty
m e m b e r R a jinde r Singh Fa

uji wa s re duc e d by

the inc onsiste n c i e s in Singh’ s te stim ony a bout how we l l Fa

uji kne w Singh or would be a ble to pre dic t whe the r he would be pe rse c ute d if he re turne d to India . The IJ c ould a lso re a sona bly c o nc lude that the va lue of the a ffidavits subm itte d by fa m ily m e m

be rs wa s re duc e d be c a

use the a ffiants c ould not bec ross-e xam ine d. 1 B a se d on the se findings, the

a ge nc y did not e rr in holding tha

t Singh’ s e vide nc e wa s insuffic ie nt to m e e t his burde n to

1 Singh c o n c e de d tha

t the IJ wa s e ntitle d to a c c ord the se a ffidavits le ss we ight be c a

use the y we re not subje c t to c ross-e xam inat ion.

3show e ithe r pa st pe rse c ution or a we ll-founde d fe ar of future pe rse c ution. 2 B e c a use Singh doe s not “ satisfy the lowe r sta

n da rd of proof for a sy lum ,” he

“ ne c e ssa rily fa ils to sa

t isfy the m ore stringe nt sta

n da rd for withholding of
re m ova l.” Ramire

z-Munoz v . Ly nc h , 816 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th C ir. 2016). Singh a lso a

rgue s tha t he e sta blishe d his e ligibility

for re lie f unde r C AT ba se d on his c re dible te stim o ny . B e c a use we uphold theIJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i na tion, we re

je c t this c la im
. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

2 Singh a l so a

rgue s tha t the IJ fa ile d to give prior notic e tha t c orroborating e vide nc e wa s ne e de d to c arry his burde n of proof. This a rgum e nt is m e ritle ss be c a use an a pplic a n t is e ntitle d to notic e only whe n the a

p p lic ant’ s te stim ony

is “ othe rwise c re dible
. ” Re n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079, 1091 (9th C i r. 2011); se e also Yali W ang v . Se ssions , 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th C ir. 2017) (“ W ang stum ble s at the first step in Re n ’ s se que ntia l a na ly sis, be c a

use W ang did not sa

tisfy the IJ tha

t he r te stim ony

is c re dible .” (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd c i tation om itte d)). 4