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

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-72600 Age n c y No. A205-082-824
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

M ay 17, 2019 ** Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS an d W . FLETC HER , C i rc uit Judge s, a nd B UR Y, *** Distric t Judge
. Ja gde e p Singh Gill, a na t ive an d c i tiz e n of India , pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) de nia l of his a pplic ation for a sy lum , 

# FIL ED
M AY 28 2019 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 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 David C . B ury , Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ariz ona , sitting by de signa tion.withholding of rem o v a l, a nd re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd we de ny

the pe t ition.

“ W he re , a s he re , the B IA a gre e s with a nd inc orporate s spe c ific findings of the [Im m igration Judge(“ IJ” )] while a dding its own re a soning, we re v ie w both de c isions.” Bhattarai v . Ly nc h , 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th C i r. 2016). Fa c tua l findings unde rly ing the de nia l of a n a sy lum , withholding, or C AT c la i m , inc luding findings re ga

rding a n a pplic an t’ s c re dibility , a

re re vie we d for substa

ntia l e vide nc e . Gui v . IN S , 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th C i r. 2002). “ Unde r the substa ntia l e vide nc e sta nda rd, the c o urt upholds the

B IA’ s de te rm ination unle ss the e vide nc e in the
re c o rd c om

pe ls a c ontra ry c o nc lusion.” C

olev . Holde r , 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th C ir. 2011) (quoting Arte aga v . Muk ase y , 511 F.3d 940, 944 (9th C ir. 2007)). The B IA’ s a dve rse c re d i bility de te rm inat ion he re wa s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . The R EAL ID Ac t, whic h gove rns c la i m s file d a fte r M ay 11, 2005, provide s the sta

nda rd for a sse ssing a

n a pplic ant’ s c re dibility
. 8 U.S.C
. § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). “ For e a c h fa c tor form ing the ba sis of a n a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i na tion, the [a g e nc y ] should re fe r to spe c ific insta nc e s in the re c ord tha

t support a c onc lusion tha

t the fa c tor unde rm ine s c re dibility .” S hre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th C ir. 2010).

2The B IA re l ie d on two grounds to uphold the IJ’ s a d ve rse c re dibility de te rm i na tion. First, the B IA note d tha t Singh Gill om

i tte d m e ntion of te le phone thre a ts from

polic e until he wa s prom pte d on c ross-e xam ination to e xpla in a supporting a ffidavit. Se c ond, the B IA pointe d to two ve rsions of thea ffidavit from Singh Gill’ s fa the r and c onc lude d tha t the c onte nts a

nd nota ry sta m p s on the le tte rs
ra ise d c onc e rns a

bout the doc um e nts’ a

uthe ntic i ty . W e are not c om pe lle d to
c onc lude tha

t e ithe r ground wa s unfounde d. The IJ ga ve Singh Gill a

n opportunity

to a d d re ss both c o nc e rns a

n d re je c te d his e xpla n a tions. Se e Rizk

v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ If the IJ re a sona bly re j e c ts the a lie n’ s e xpla

nation, . . . or if the

a lie n fa i ls to provide

a pla u sible e xpla

na tion, the IJ m ay

prope rly re ly on the inc onsiste nc y

a s support for
an a d ve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination.” ). W e are not c om pe lle d to c onc lude tha

t the IJ a c te d unre a sona

bly in re je c ting Singh Gill’ s e xpla nations. In the a bse nc e of c re d i ble te stim ony , Singh Gill would ne e d to prove a we llfounde d fe ar of pe rse c u tion ba se d on his doc um e nta ry e v ide nc e a lone
. The B IA’ s de te rm i na tion tha

t Singh Gill’ s supporting a ffidavits c ould be a fforde d “ m inim a l
we ight” w a s supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e in light of the B IA’ s c onc e rns a

bout the a ffidavits’ a

uthe ntic ity . The re m a ining doc um e nta ry e vide nc e doe s not show
e ithe r that Singh Gill suffere d pa st pe rse c ution or tha t his fe ar of future pe rse c ution
3wa s obje c tive ly re a sona ble . The B IA’ s de nia l of a sy lum and withholding of
re m ova l is supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Sim ila rly , a bse nt c re d ible te stim o ny , Singh Gill wa s una ble to show
e ligibility for C AT re lie f. “ [A] C AT a pplic a n t m ay satisfy his burde n with
e vide nc e of c ountry

c onditions alone .” Aguilar-Ramos v. Holde r , 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th C i r. 2010). Though the c ountry c onditions doc

um e nts he re show
m istre a t m e nt of c e rta in high-profile Sikh a c tivists, the

y do not show suc h wide spre a d m istre a tm e nt a nd im punity a s to c om

pe l an infe re nc e tha

t Singh Gill is

“ m ore like ly tha

n not” to be torture d in India on the ba sis of e ithe r his politic a l or
re ligious a ffilia

tion. 8 C .F.R . § 1208.16(c )(2). The B IA’ s de nia l of C AT re lie f is supporte d by substa

ntia l e vide nc e . PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4