NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANPREET SINGH, AKA Ravi Thapa,

Petitioner,

v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 17

- 72793

Agency No. A208

- 191

- 871

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2020 * * San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and GWIN, ** * District Judge.

Man

preet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the Immigration

* 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).

*** The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

MAY 15 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding from removal, and

protection under the Conventi on Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. section 1252(a)(1). W e deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. The

agency’s adverse credibility finding was “supported by omissi ons” of “new
allegations that tell a ‘much different

–– and more compelling

–– story of persecution
than [the] initial application.’” Silva

- Pereira v. Lynch , 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir.
2016), quoting Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011).

The IJ and Board relied on Singh ’s omi ssions in his asylum application and
accompanying written declaration about whether his June 2014 attackers were
government officials and whether he was threatened by the police after attempting

to report the attack. On direct examination at his merits hearing, Singh testified that
the police refused to take his report and demanded he “better go away ” or that they

would “beat [ him ] too

. ” However, Singh’s written declaration, which described this

same incident, omitted any claim that the police physically threatened him. In

addition, on cross

- examination, when pressed about how he was able to identify his
June 2014 attackers as government officials, Singh pointed to the sticker on his

attackers’ van, which allegedly displayed the logo from the Badal and BJP part ies

. Yet, in his written declaration , Singh swore that he had observed the stickers on the

v an in the second incident i n December 2014. Because Singh’s claim for asylum3

was based on his fear that members of the Badal and BJP parties would target him

if he returned to India
, the Board reasonably concluded that Sing h had omi tted
allegations in his asylum application that were “crucial to establishing” whether he
would be “p ersecuted for [his] political opinion.” Kin v. Holder , 595 F.3d 1050,
1057 (9th Cir. 2010)

. Because these details were crucial to establishing Singh’s eligibility, we

distinguis h the principal case on which he relies

–– Lai v. Holder , 773 F.3d 966 (9th
Cir. 2014). Unlike the material omissions here, the omissions supporting the
agency’s adverse credibility finding in Lai were immaterial to his

application. See id. at 973

- 74. Acc ordingly, Lai is inapposite.

The Board did not err in rejecting Singh’s explanation for his omissions.

When asked by the IJ about the omissions
, Singh testified that he “wrote whatever
[he] remembered” and that he “knew” that he could “tell all these things” at his
merits hearing. However, Singh’s belief that it was “not necessary” to include an
allegation because it “would be discussed at the [merits] hearing” was “ not
persuasive enough to compel the conclusion that the omissions were immaterial.”

Kin , 595 F.3d at 1057. Accordingly, Singh’s explanation was implausible “in light
of the importance of the omitted incidents to his asylum claim.” Zamanov , 649 F.3d

at 9 74 (citation omitted).
Because Singh was not credible, he was not eligible for asylum. See Farah v.4

Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). H e therefore necessarily failed to
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Pedr o

- Mateo v.

I.N.S. , 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000)

. Accordingly, we deny Singh’s petition
for review of the Board’s decision as to his asylum and withholding of removal

claims.

The Board also did not err in affirming the IJ’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim.
Singh’s challenge to the Board’s denial of his CAT claim is based solely on the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding. Because the record does not compel reversal of the
adverse credibility finding, the record likewise does not compel reversal of the

B oard’s denial of the CAT claim.

PETITION DENIED.