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

M ALKIT SINGH, Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde n t - Appe lle e . No. 11-71849

Age n c y No. A096-166-396
M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for R e vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igra tion Appe a ls Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 4, 2015 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TALLM AN a

n d R AW LINSON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd M UR PHY, Distric t Judge

. *** 

# FIL ED
FEB 06 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).
*** The Honora

ble Ste phe n Jose p h M urphy , III, Unite d Sta te s Distric t Judge for the Ea ste rn Distric t of M ic higa n, sitting by

de signa t ion. 1M a lkit Singh, a na tive a nd c itiz e n of India , pet i ti o n s for re vie w of a B oa rd of Im m i gra tion Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm ing a n Im m igra tion Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of h is a pplic a tion for a sy lum , withholding o f re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (“ C AT” ). Singh a dditiona lly a sse rts the inc om pe te nc y of his inte rpre te r de nie d him a full a n d fa ir he a ring i n viol at i o n of his right to d ue proc e s s. W e ha ve jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C
. § 1252 to re vie w this pre -R EAL ID A c t pe tition. 1. The spe c i fic a

nd unre c onc ile d i nc onsiste nc ie s a s to Singh’ s do ct o r, his whe re a bouts du r i n g the August 2002 polic e se a rc h, a nd the e rrors i n the hospita l
re port c onstitute substa

ntia l e vide nc e re la te d to e ve nts tha t form the ba sis of Singh’ s pe tition. C onse que ntly , w e a re re quire d to uphold the ag e nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding. Se e Li v . Ashc roft , 3 78 F.3d 959, 964 (9th C ir. 2004) (“ So long a s one of the ide n tifie d grounds is s u p p o r t e d by substa ntia l e vide n c e a nd goe s to the h e a rt of [the pe titione r’ s] c la im of pe rse c ution, we a re bound to a c c e pt the IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding.” (inte rna l quota

t ion om itte d)). In the a

bse nc e of c re dible te stim ony , Singh’ s
a sy lum a nd withholding of re m ova l c la im s fa il. Se e Farah v . A s hc r oft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). 2. Fa ilure to e sta

blish e ligibility for a sy lum , howe v e r, doe s not ne c e ssa rily doom
a n a pplic a t ion for re lie f unde r the C AT. Se e K amalthas v. I

. N. S. , 251 F.3d 1279,

21282–83 (9th C ir. 2001). B ut S i n g h ’ s C AT c l a im s a re b a se d on the sa m e s ta te m e nts

an d ev ide nc e the IJ found not c re dible

. R e p orts of a buse i n India do not c om

pe l the
c onc lusion Singh would like l y be torture d if re turne d. B e c a use we af

f irm the IJ’ s
a dve rse c re dibility d e te rm ina tion, we s im ila rly a ffirm the re

je c tion of Si n g h ’s cl a im for C AT prote c t ion. Se e Farah , 348 F.3d a t 1156–57. 3. To suc c e e d on a

n inc om pe te n t tra nsla

t ion c la im , a pe titione r m u s t show “ a be tte r tra nsla

tion would ha v e m a de a diffe re nc e in the outc om e of t he he a ring.” Pe re

zLastor v . I.N

.S. , 2 0 8 F.3d 773, 780 (9th C ir. 2 000) (inte rna l quota tion om itte d ). Singh ide n tifie s two tra nsla

tion e rrors—

re ga rding his p oliti cal orga

niz a tion a n d a spe c ific de ta il of his a

buse

— t ha t he c la i m s cause d c onfusion a nd le d the IJ t o q ue stion the
c re d ibility of his te stim ony . The tra nsla t ion e rrors, howe ve r, did not form t he ba sis of the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re d ibility de te rm ina t ion, a nd t he e r r o r s d i d not pre ve nt Singh from pre se n ting re le va

nt e vide nc e . Eve n a c knowle dging the fla ws in tra nsla tion, the re
wa s no p re

judic e tha t a ffe c te d the out com e . Se e Singh v . A shc r oft , 367 F.3d 1139, 1143–44 (9th C ir. 2004). PE T IT IO N DE NIE D
.

3