NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASWINDER SINGH,

Petitioner, 

v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 17-70392

Agency No. A205-145-375

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 10, 2020**

Seattle, Washington

Before: NGUYEN and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and SEEBORG,*** District 

Judge.

Petitioner Jaswinder Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”)

* 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).

*** The Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge for the 

Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

FILED

JUL 14 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under 

the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review questions of law de novo 

and factual findings for substantial evidence. Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289, 

1290 (9th Cir. 2008). Because substantial evidence supports the BIA’s decision,

we deny the petition for review.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), the IJ may base an 

adverse credibility determination on the consistency of the applicant’s account 

with his own statements and other evidence or the inherent plausibility of the 

applicant’s testimony. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). The IJ may consider “any 

inaccuracies or falsehoods in [the applicant’s] statements . . . without regard to 

whether [it] goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” Id. Because the IJ is in

“the best position to assess demeanor and other credibility cues,” Shrestha v. 

Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010), “[o]nly the most extraordinary 

circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility determination.” SilvaPereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (simplified).

Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. The agency 

identified multiple inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony regarding a central aspect 

of his claim: his alleged beating by rival party members. For example, in his 

declaration and testimony under cross examination, Singh claimed there had been 

another party member present during a beating, but in his testimony under direct 
3 

examination, Singh did not mention another member. 

Singh’s testimony also conflicted with the documentary evidence. He

claimed that after the beating, he had remained unconscious for one day,

contradicting documentary evidence from the hospital stating he was unconscious 

for two hours. Singh tried to explain this discrepancy by saying he was given 

sleep-inducing medication after waking, but this also conflicted with hospital’s 

record evidence. 

Moreover, the IJ found several aspects of Singh’s testimony evasive or 

exaggerated. While Singh testified that he stopped members of the Congress Party 

and another rival political party from selling drugs and buying votes, under 

questioning, he claimed he had never actually seen anyone participating in these 

activities. 

“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable 

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1252(b)(4)(B) (emphasis added). Nothing in the record compels us to accept 

Singh’s proffered explanations for the multiple inconsistencies in his testimony. 

Under this “extremely deferential” standard of review, we decline to disturb the 

agency’s adverse credibility finding. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th 

Cir. 2003).

Absent credible testimony, Singh cannot sustain his burden to demonstrate 
4 

entitlement to asylum or withholding of removal. Nor may we reach Singh’s 

request for relief under the CAT because Singh failed to exhaust this claim before 

the BIA. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). 

The petition for review is DENIED.