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

Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-73577 Age n c y No. A205-332-174
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 Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 13, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ER

ZON a nd FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge s, a nd SESSIONS, Distric t Judge
. *** 

# FIL ED N OV 21 2017 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 9th C ir. R . 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 W illia m K. Se ssions III, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ve rm ont, sitting by de s igna tion.Sukhje e t Singh pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of his a

pplic a tions for a sy l um , withholding of re m ova l, a n d re lie f unde r the C onve n tion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). Singh a lso a ppe a l s the B IA’ s de nia l of his m o tion to re m and the proc e e dings to the Im m igration Judge(“ IJ” ). 1. The IJ found Sukhje e t

Singh not c re dible , a

nd the B IA uphe ld tha

t de te rm i nation. The B IA’ s c re d ibility de te rm ination is supporte d by substa ntia l
e vide nc e . The B IA re l ie d prim arily

on two inc onsiste nc ie s or om issions tha t, in light of

“ the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s,” be a

r on Singh’ s c re dibility . 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii); s e eRe n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th C ir. 2011). First,
ne ithe r the a ffida

v it from Singh’ s m o the r, Gia

n Ka ur, nor the a ffidavit from

the villa ge offic ia l, Avta

r Singh, a c knowle dge d the de a th of Singh’ s fathe r. That
om i ssion is signific ant, a s Singh’ s c la im to politic a l pe rse c ution re lie d princ ipa lly on his fa the r an d brothe r’ s m e m

be rship in theAka li Da l M ann pa rty , a nd Singh
a lle ge s his fa

t he r die d a s a

re sult of injurie s c a

use d by the polic e . Se c ond, the doc tor’ s le tte r de sc ribing Singh’ s c ondition a fte r he wa s a rre ste d
and he ld by

polic e om its a

ny m e ntion of them ost se ve re injurie s tha t Singh c la im s to ha ve suffe re d. Singh a l le ge d tha t he wa s “ se ve re ly

be a te n” and “ torture d” by four polic e m e n who pulle d his le gs a pa rt a nd rolle d a

rolle r on his thighs to the 2point tha

t he “ c ould not be ar the pa in a nd . . . be c am e unc onsc ious.” He furthe r a lle ge d tha

t , whe n he wa s a d

m itte d to the hospita l, he ha d blood in his urine and
wa s una ble “ to c arry the we ight” of his body . B ut the doc tor’ s le tte r m ake s no m e ntion of phy sic a l signs of be a ting, diffic ulty wa l king, or blood in urine , a nd sta te s only that he “ wa s suffe ring from Fe ve r and bom i ting [sic ] and dihy dre tion [sic ] .” Whe n a ske d a

bout the se inc onsiste nc ie s, Singh fa ile d to provideany a de quate e xpla

nation. The se inc o nsiste nc ie s and om issions we re not “ m inor,” de Le on-Barrios v
. IN S , 116 F.3d 391, 393 (9th C i r. 1997), or “ trivia l ,” Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1043–44 (9th C ir. 2010). TheB IA wa s e ntitle d to re ly on the se inc o nsiste nc i e s to uphold the a d ve rse c re d ibility

de te rm ination, a

nd the re fore to
c onc lude tha

t Singh is not e ligiblefor a sy lum or withholding of re

m o va l. 2. Substa ntia l e v ide nc e a lso supports the B IA’ s de t e rm i nation tha t Singh is not e ligiblefor re l ie f unde r C AT. Singh be ars the burde n of e sta blishing tha

t he would “ m ore like ly

tha n not” be torture d

by or with thea c quie sc e n c e of the gove rnm e nt if he re turns to India . 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2), 1208.17(a ); se e also 8 C .F.R . § 1208.18(a)(1). Singh is not re quire d to de m onstra te tha t re loc a tion
e lse whe re in India , outside Punja b, is im possible
. Se e Maldonado v . Ly nc h , 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th C ir. 2015). R a the r, in de c iding whe the r Singh ha s sa tisfie d 3his burde n of de m onstra ting a like lihood of torture

if re m ove d, the a g e nc y

“ m ust
c onside r a ll re le va

nt e vide nc e , inc luding but not lim ite d to the possibility

of
re loc a tion within the c ountry of re m ova l.” Id
. B e c a use Singh’ s te stim ony

wa s found not c re d ible , e ligibility for C A T prote c tion would ha

ve to be ba se d e xc lusive ly on the c ountry

re p orts. B a se d on those re ports, the re is no re a son to be lie ve tha t Singh c ould not re loc a te to a nothe r re gion in India , whe re he would not like ly fa c e pe rse c ution. 3. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Singh’ s re que st to
re m and to the IJ for re c onside ra tion ba s e d upon the subm ission of his fa the r’ s de a th c e rtific a t e . The IJ ba se d its a dve rse c re d ibility de te rm ination on the inc o nsiste nc i e s a

nd om issions in Singh’ s te stim ony , a s we ll a s on the a bse nc e of
va rious pie c e s of c orroborat ing e vide nc e ; the IJ spe c ific a lly sta te d tha t “ with or without a de a th c e rtific a te , the de a th of a fa the r would c e rta inly

be a signific ant fa c t or” tha

t one would e xpe c t to se e m e ntione d in the Singh’ s m othe r’ s a ffidavit. As the de a th c e rtific a te is insuffic ie nt to e sta blish prim a fa c ie e l igibility for re lie f, the B IA did not e rr in de ny ing the re que st for re m and. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

4