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

SINGH-KAUR , Pe t i tione r,
v. LOR ETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 13-73247 Age n c y No. A073-129-797
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 igration Appe a ls Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 14, 2016 Sa n Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : GOULD a

nd B E R ZON, C irc uit Judge s, a

nd SESSIONS, ** Distric t

Judge
. Harjinde r Singh-Ka

ur, a lso known a s Ja gta

r Singh, pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (B IA) te rm ination of his prior gra nt of a sy lum
and re je c t ion of his c la i m s for a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l, a n d re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture . W e de ny his pe tition for re vie w . 

# FIL ED SEP 27 2016 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 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.1. The B IA prope rly uphe ld the Im

m igration Judge ’ s te rm ination of SinghKa ur’ s prior gra

nt of a sy lum

unde r 8 C .F.R . § 1208.24(a)(1). Singh-Ka ur c onc e d e d be fore the B IA and c onc e de s he re tha t he c om m itte d fraud in his 1994 a sy l um

a pplic a tion. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the Im m igration Judge ’ s de te rm ination tha t Singh-Ka ur’ s a pplic a tion fra

ud, toge the r with his fa lse re pre s e ntations in his
re m ova l he aring a

nd a sy lum

inte rvie w and the inc o nsiste nc i e s in the storie s of pe rse c ution pre se nte d in his 1994 a nd 1996 a sy lum

a pplic at ions, re nde re d him ine l igible for a sy lum

a t the tim e it wa s gra

n te d be c a use the y fa ta l ly unde rm ine d his
c re d ibility
. Se e 8 C .F.R . § 1208.24(a)(1). Singh-Ka ur m isre pre se nte d his na

m e , date of birth, m arita l sta tus, a nd pa re nta l sta tus in his 1994 a

pplic a tion. The n, in his 1996 a sy lum a pplic a tion, he
m isre pre se nte d the date s of a n inc ide nt in India

an d of his a

rriva l in the Unite d Sta t e s. Singh-Ka

ur re pe a te d the se m isre pre se ntations be fore an Im m i gra tion Judge
and be fore an Asy lum

Offic e r re spe c tive ly . Furthe rm o re , in his 1996 a p plic a tion, Singh-Ka ur de nie d having pre viously

file d a n a sy lum a

pplic at ion a

nd de nie d tha

t he wa s in de porta

tion proc e e dings. Singh-Ka ur a lso told substa

ntia lly diffe re nt storie s of pe rse c ution in his 1994 a nd 1996 a sy lum

a pplic a tions, re porting diffe re n t da te s, loc a tions, a c tors, a

nd form s of pe rse c ution.

2In the 2009 he aring, the Im m igrat ion Judge gave Singh-Ka ur the opportunity to e x pla in his fa lse re pre se ntations a n d the disc re pa

nc ie s be twe e n his a

pplic a tions. 1 Singh-Ka ur sta te d tha t he m isre pre se nte d his ide n tity in his 1994 a p plic a tion on the
a dvic e of the a ge nt who a ssiste d him . W he n the Im m igrat ion Judge pre sse d

SinghKa ur re ga rding the om i ssions in both his a pplic a tions, Singh-Ka

ur e xpla ine d tha

t, whe n c om

ple ting e a c h a

p p lic a tion, he wa s a dvise d to de sc ribe only the la st, m ost signific ant inc ide nt of pe rse c u tion. The Im m igration Judgefound this e xpla na tion inc o he re nt, give n tha

t the a pplic a tions de sc ribe d diffe re nt inc ide nts. The Im m igration Judgedid not ha v e to a c c e pt Singh-Ka

ur’ s e xpla na tion a s true , a s the re c ord doe s not c o m pe l suc h a c c e pta

nc e . Se e K

aur v . Gonzale

z , 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th C ir. 2005). The Im m igration Judge fulfille d he r obliga tions to c o nside r Singh-Ka

ur’ s fa lse sta

te m e nts in light of a

ll the c irc um sta

nc e s, se e Turc ios v . IN

S , 821 F.2d 1396, 1400 (9th C ir. 1987), a nd to provide

a spe c ific
re a s on for he r a dve rse c re d ibility finding, se e Gui v . IN

S , 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th C ir. 2002).

1 At ora l argum e nt Singh-Ka ur argue d tha

t the Im m igration Judgedid not provide him

with the opportunity

to e xpla in the inc o nsiste nc ie s in his a pplic a tions. Singh-Ka ur did not a

rgue a la c k of opportunity

to e xpla in in his brie f be fore this c ourt, so theargum e nt is wa ive d. Eve n if the argum e nt we re not wa ive d, it ha s no m e rit. The re c ord shows tha t during the 2009 he a

ring the Im

m igration Judge spe c ific a lly

a ske d Singh-Ka

ur a bout the disc re pa

nc ie s be twe e n his a

pplic a tions a

nd gave him an opportunity to e xp la in those disc re pa nc ie s. 3For the se re a sons, we de ny the pe tition for re vie w of the B IA’ s te rm ination of Singh-Ka

ur’ s prior gra

nt of a sy lum
. 2. Singh-Ka

ur wa ive d a

ny obje c tions to the

B IA’ s de nia l of his a s y l um , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd C onve ntion Aga inst Torture c la im s by not ra ising the issue s in his ope ning brie f be fore this c ourt. Se e C ui v . Holde r , 712 F.3d 1332, 1338 n.3 (9th C ir. 2013). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

4