N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
GURDEEP SINGH, Pe titione r,
v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l R

e sponde n t . No. 13-70004 Age n c y No. A089-697-696
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 and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 18, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : M c KEOW

N, R AW L INSON, and PAR

KER , ** C i rc uit Judge s. Gurde e p Singh, a

native and c itiz e n of India , pe titions for re vie w of a n orde r of the B o ard of Im

m igration Appe a ls (“ B IA” ) dism issing his a ppe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c ision de ny ing his a pplic a tion for a sy lum , withholding of rem o v a l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture



# FIL ED JAN 12 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 tion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he Honora

b le B arrington D. Pa

rke r, Jr., Se n ior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a ls for the Se c ond C irc uit, sitting by de signa tion.(“ C AT” ) on the ba sis of a n a dve rse c re d ibility

de te rm ination. W e have jurisdic tion to re vie w unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd re vie w de nia ls of the se thre e form s of re lie f for substa ntia l e v ide nc e . Ling Huang v . Holde r , 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th C ir. 2014). W e hold tha

t substa ntia l e vide nc e supporte d the IJ’ s de c ision a nd de ny the pe tition for re vie w. Unde r the REAL ID Ac t, a n inc onsiste nc y

be t we e n a n a sy lum a pplic ant’ s writte n sta te m e nt a nd ora l te s tim ony

c an give rise to a

n a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation, e ve n if tha t inc onsiste nc y

doe s not “ go[] to the he art of the
a pplic ant’ s c la i m . ” 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii); se e Re n v . Holde r , 648 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th C ir. 2011). TheIJ found, a nd the B IA a ffirm e d , a

num be r of substa ntia l inc o nsiste nc ie s be twe e n Singh’ s sworn sta te m e nt a nd his ora l te stim ony . Spe c ific a l ly , she found inc onsiste nc i e s re ga rding how thepolic e c le rk in his hom e villa ge tre a te d him whe n he file d a c o m pla int, whe t

he r and whe n he file d a se c ond c om

pla int in a nothe r distric t, a

nd who wa s pre se n t whe n he wa s re le a se d from polic e c ustody
. To re ve rse an a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination, “ w e m

ust find tha

t the
e vide nc e not only supports a c o ntra ry c onc lusion, but c ompe ls it.” R i zk v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th C ir. 2011) (inte rna l a lte ra t ion om itte d) (quoting IN S v
. Elias-Zac arias , 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992)). Eve n if Singh’ s e xpla

n a tions for 2the s e inc o nsiste nc ie s a re pla usible , we have c om

pa re d his sworn sta

te m e nt to the he aring tra

nsc ript a nd do not find the se e xpla n a tions c om

pe lling. The transc ript
a lso shows tha

t the IJ c le arly a ske d Singh a bout the disc re pa

nc i e s be twe e n his writte n and ora l te stim ony , a

nd thus the

IJ provide d him

with a re a s ona b le opportunity

to re solve the se disc re pa

nc ie s, se e Le i

Li v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th C ir. 2011). The IJ a dditiona lly

supporte d he r a dve rse c re d ibility de te rm ination with a finding a bout Singh’ s “ de m e a

nor.” Spe c ific a l ly , the IJ found tha t Singh “ broke down a n d c rie d” in de sc ribing his fa the r’ s de a t

h, but not in de sc ribing his alle ge d
a buse b y the polic e . The B IA a ffirm e d this finding. We are dubious tha t a n a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm inat ion m ay

a ppropria te ly be ba se d on a

n a pplic ant’ s fa ilure to displa

y a pa rtic ula r e m otion in the s e c irc um sta nc e s, pa rtic ula rly sinc e

“ [a ] dve rse c re dibility findings m ay not be ba se d upon spe c ulation or c onje c ture .” K umar v . Gonzale

s , 444 F.3d 1043, 1050 (9th C ir. 2006). Ne ve rthe le s s, we n e e d not re a c h this issue be c a use othe r inc o n siste nc ie s c ite d by the IJ a re suffic i e nt to uphold he

r a dve rse c re dibility

de te rm ination. The R EAL ID Ac t a

uthoriz e s a

n IJ to “ c o nside r[] the tota lity of the c irc um sta

nc e s” in
m aking a c re dibility

de te rm i nat ion. 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). B a se d on this la ngua ge , we m

ust gra nt “ a he a lthy m e a sure of de fe re nc e to a ge nc y c re dibility 3de te rm i nations.” Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C i r. 2010). An IJ’ s ana ly sis of thec irc um sta

nc e s is suffic ie nt if she c ite s “ spe c ific insta nc e s in the
re c o rd” and provide s “ spe c ific and c oge nt re a sons in support.” Id. at 1042–43. He re , the IJ offe re d spe c ific e xam ple s of inc onsiste nc ie s in Singh’ s sta te m e n ts a nd supporte d the m

with c om pa risons be twe e n his sworn sta te m e nt a n d his a nswe rs to que stions a

t his he aring. Furthe rm ore , Singh ha s not pointe d to othe r fa c ts tha t would unde rm ine the IJ’ s a d ve rse c re dibility de te rm ination. W e c onc lude tha t the IJ fa irly c onside re d the re c ord a s a whole in noting the

inc onsiste nc ie s. Se e id. at 1040–41. An a sy lum

a pplic a n t be ars the burde n of proof to e s ta blish tha t he is a
re fuge e . 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(i). The IJ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm ination
a llowe d he r to find tha

t Singh did not c arry

his burde n. Se e Ling Huang , 744 F.3d
a t 1156. B e c a

use Singh did not m

e e t the burde n of proof of a s y lum , he ne c e ssa rily fa ile d to m e e t the m ore stringe n t burde n of proof for withholding of re m ova l. Id. In a ddition, sinc e the sa

m e fa c tua l a sse rtions unde rlie his c la im s for a sy lum and for prote c tion unde r C AT, substa ntia l e v ide nc e supports the IJ’ s de nia l of re lie f unde r C AT. Se e id. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

4