N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TARLOC K SINGH, AKA Ta rloc ha n Singh, Pe t i tione r,
v. ER IC H. HOLDER , JR
. , Attorne y Ge ne ra l , R e sponde nt. No. 09-73798 Age n c y No. A073-133-622
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 Argue d a nd Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 12, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FISHER , B ER

ZON a nd C HR ISTEN, C i rc u it Judge s. Tarloc k (aka

Ta rloc ha n) Singh pe t itions for re vie w of the B o ard of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (B IA) de c ision dism issing his a

ppe a l of a n im m i gration judge ’ s (IJ) de c ision finding him e xc luda b le and de ny ing his c la im s for a s y lum , withholding of rem o v a l a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture (C AT). W e de ny

the pe tition for re vie w. 

# FIL ED
NOV 13 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.1. Eve n a ssum ing the IJ a nd the B IA e rre d by

re l y ing on thea irport inte rvie w sta

te m e nt a s a

sourc e of im

pe a c hm e nt, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the
a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion. In a

sta te m e nt inc l ude d with his 1994 a sy lum
a pplic ation, Singh te stifie d with re spe c t to his se c o nd a

rre st tha t he spe nt four da

y s in ja il. He late r te stifie d

he wa s he ld ove rnight. In thesa m e 1994 de c la

ra tion, Singh te stifie d tha

t, following his third a

rre st, polic e c am e to his house to ha ra ss him e xa c tly two tim e s . He late r te stifie d it wa s a pproxim ate ly

10 tim e s a

nd de finite ly wa s not two time s . The se inc onsiste n c ie s we nt to thehe a rt of Singh’ s a sy lum c la im

be c a use the y “ c onc e rn[e d] e ve nts c e ntra l to [his] ve rsion of why he
wa s pe rse c ute d a

nd fle d.” Singh v . Gonzale s , 439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th C ir. 2006). The B IA, m ore ove r, wa s not re quire d to c re dit Singh’ s e xpla nation tha t the se inc o nsiste nc i e s we re the produc t of c are l e ssne ss on thepa rt of his form e r a ttorne y , e spe c ia l ly in light of the

a b se nc e of a

ny e vide nc e to support tha

t e xpla nation. The se two inc onsiste nc ie s a lone are suffic ie nt to sustain the a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation. Se e K

hadk a v . Holde r , 618 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th C i r. 2010) (“ As long a s one of the ide ntifie d grounds underly ing a ne gat ive c re dibility finding is supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e an d goe s to the he art of the c la im s of pe rse c ution, weare bound to a c c e pt the ne gative c re dibility finding.” ). In a ddition, the

re c ord c o nta ins num e rous othe r insta nc e s of Singh’ s fa lse
and inc onsiste nt sta

te m e n ts, m any

of whic h he ultim ate ly

a c knowle dge s we re fa lse
. 2He gave fa lse sta te m e nts a bout his na

m e , date of birth a

nd pla c e of e ntry

into the Unite d State s in a

n a p p are nt e ffort to m isle a d im m igration offic ia ls. R e ga rdle ss of whe the r the se sta

te m e nts go to the

he art of the c la im , the y

pla inly le nd a dditiona l support to the

a dve rse c re d ibility

finding. Se e Singh v . Holde r , 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ An a sy lum a p plic ant who lie s to im

m igration a

uthoritie s c a sts doubt on his c

re dibility an d the re st of his story . The re are stric tly lim ite d insta nc e s whe n we ove rlook a n a lie n’ s de c ision to m

isle a d im m i gration offic ia ls . . . .” ); K aur v . Gonzale

s , 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th C i r. 2005) (noting tha t “ a patte rn of c le ar and pe rva s ive inc onsiste nc y or c ontra dic tion” will support a n a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion). 2. In light of the

a dve rse c re dibility

de t e rm i nation, substa

ntia l e vide nc e supports the

B IA’ s de nia l of a sy lum , withholding of re m ova l a nd C AT re lie f. The B IA wa s not re quire d to givesubsta ntia l we ight to two de c la

ra tions subm

itte d by Singh’ s fathe r. For the se re a sons, Singh’ s pe tition for re vie w in No. 09-73798 is de nie d. W e a ddre ss Singh’ s pe tition for re vie w in c onsolida te d c a se No. 10-72626 by
se pa ra te disposition. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

3