NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARJINDER SINGH, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-73434 

Agency No. A201-018-137

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 19, 2021**

San Francisco, California

Before: PAEZ, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Harjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an 

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for 

asylum. The BIA’s order upheld the determination of an immigration judge (IJ) 

that Singh established eligibility for asylum but was not entitled to that relief as a 

* 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).

FILED

NOV 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Page 2 of 3

matter of discretion. Finding neither a due process violation nor an abuse of 

discretion in the agency’s decision, we deny the petition as to Singh’s asylum 

claim. We dismiss the petition as to Singh’s newly raised claim for humanitarian 

asylum.

1. The BIA did not violate Singh’s due process rights when it affirmed the 

IJ’s denial of his asylum application on discretionary grounds. The agency found 

that Singh testified credibly about his past persecution in India, but that he was not 

forthcoming about his criminal history or place of residence. Contrary to Singh’s 

contention, those two findings do not amount to an impermissibly bifurcated 

credibility determination. See Kalubi v. Ashcroft, 364 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir. 

2004). Unlike in Kalubi, the substantive issues on which the agency found Singh 

credible were distinct from the issues on which it found he lacked candor.

1

 

Specifically, Singh admitted during cross-examination that he had been arrested 

and had a criminal charge pending in Texas. He had not listed that charge on the

addendum to the I-589 application he submitted at the removal hearing, nor had he 

otherwise notified the agency of the charge. Singh also repeatedly affirmed that he 

lived in California despite actually having worked and lived in Texas for several 

1 Singh contends that the IJ found him not credible as to these issues. She did not; 

she merely found he lacked candor. He offers no authority showing that she was 

required to make a credibility finding at the second step as to his explanations for 

his lack of candor before exercising her discretion.
Page 3 of 3

years. The agency permissibly exercised its discretion in finding that, while his 

credible testimony established eligibility for asylum, his lack of candor with 

respect to his criminal history and place of residence weighed against granting him 

asylum.

2. We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s claim for humanitarian asylum, 

which he raises for the first time in his petition for review. See Alvarado v. 

Holder, 759 F.3d 1121, 1128 (9th Cir. 2014). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN 

PART.