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

e sponde n t . No. 12-73448 Age n c y No. A089-689-388 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 Se pte m

be r 3, 2015 ** Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N, GOULD, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the B IA’ s a dve rse c re dibility finding. The B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s (B IA) ide ntifie d thre e re a sons for its a dve rse c re d ibility

finding: (1) Singh pre se nte d inc onsiste nt inform ation surrounding his politic a l m e m

be rship; (2) Singh pre se nte d inc o nsiste nt inform ation a bout whe re he 

# FIL ED SEP 08 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 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).wa s a

rre ste d; a nd (3) Singh’ s c orroborative doc um e nts did not support his c la im of pe rse c ution. 1. Singh wa s inc onsiste n t be twe e n (a ) his first a sy lum a pplic ation a

nd a sy lum inte rvie w a

nd (b) his se c ond a sy lum

a pplic ation a

nd te stim ony

be fore the im m igration judge(IJ) re ga

rding his m e m

b e rship (or la c k the re of) with B a bba r Kha lsa Inte rnat iona l (B KI), a

de signa te d te rrorist orga

niz ation. Singh wa s c onfronte d with this inc onsiste nc y . The IJ re a sona bly re je c te d Singh’ s e xpla

nation that he wa s ne rvous, noting tha t the inte rvie ws oc c urre d a c onside ra

ble tim e a fte r Singh e nte re d the Unite d State s , he brought his own inte rpre te r with him , and the a sy lum offic e r te stifie d tha t he wa s not ne rvous. S

e e Rizk v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th C ir. 2011). There c o rd doe s not c om p e l a diffe re nt c onc l usion. 2. Singh wa s inc onsiste n t a bout whe re he wa s a

rre ste d (at his hom e or in a fie ld a t a farm ). Whe n c onfronte d, Singh sta t e d tha t he did not re m e m

be r te lling the a sy lum offic e r that

he wa s a rre s te d in a

fie ld or, a l te rnat ive ly , he lie d to the a sy lum offic e r, be c a

u se he wa s ne rvous. Singh e ffe c tive l y a dm itte d to this inc onsiste nc y , and the B IA prope rly

re lie d on it. S

e e Shre stha v . Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th C ir. 2010) (noting unde r the REAL ID Ac t, inc onsiste nc ie s no longe r have to go to thehe art of the m a tte r). The re c ord doe s not c om pe l a diffe re nt c onc l usion.

23. Singh’ s c o rroborative doc um e nts, e ve n if re l ia ble , did not c orroborate his c la im s. Singh doe s not c ha lle nge this c onc lusion; thus a ny argum e nt is wa ive d. Se e Martine

z-Se rrano v . IN

S , 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th C i r. 1996). R athe r Singh argue s tha

t the B IA e rre d in c onc luding tha t he fa ile d to c orroborat e his c la im . The B IA did not m ake this finding. The re fore , we ne e d not a ddre ss it. Se e Te k lev . Muk ase y , 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th C ir. 2008) (noting tha t we our re vie wis lim ite d to the re a sons liste d by the B IA). Ac c ordingly , be c a

use the a dve rse c re dibility finding is supporte d

by substa ntia l e vide nc e , the B IA’ s de te rm i nation tha t Singh fa ile d to e sta

blish pa st pe rse c ution a

nd a we ll-founde d fe ar of pe rse c ution is also supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e . Se e Farah v . Ashc r oft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). TheB IA a lso did not err in c onc luding tha t Singh’ s C AT c la im

fa ile d. Singh points to no othe r e vide nc e to show it is m ore like ly tha n not he would be torture d if he re turne d to India . Id . at

1156-57. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

3