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

Pe t i tione r,
v. W ILLIAM P. B ARR , Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 17-71244 Age n c y No. A095-401-375
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 De c e m

be r 4, 2019 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd W . FLETC HER and M ILLER , C irc uit Judge s . Pe titione r R awa il Singh pe titions for re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ s (“ B IA” ) dism issa l of his a ppe a l of a n Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de c isions (1) te rm inat ing a sy lum sta tus; (2) de ny ing a

pplic ations for a sy lum ,



# FIL ED DEC 06 2019 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 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).withholding of rem o v a l, re lie f unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture , an d

a djustm e nt of sta

tus; a nd (3) orde ring him

re m ove d. W e re vie w the a ge n c y ’ s fa c t ua l findings for substa

ntia l e vide nc e , inc luding a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nations. Farah v . Ashc r oft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th C ir. 2003). W e re vie w que stions of la

w de novo. Urooj v . Holde r , 734 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th C ir. 2013). W he re , a s he re , the B IA a dopts thede c ision of theIJ, we re vie w the IJ’ s de c ision a s if it we re that of the B IA. Id. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252 a nd we de ny

the p e tition. To te rm i nate Singh’ s a sy lum sta tus, the gove rnm e nt ha d the burde n to prove , by a pre p onde ranc e of the e vide nc e , tha t the re wa s “ a

showing of fra

ud in [Singh’ s] a

pplic a tion suc h tha

t he . . . wa s not e ligiblefor a sy lum at the tim e it wa s gran te d.” 8 C .F.R . § 1208.24(a)(1) & (f). Substa ntia l e vide n c e supports the IJ’ s de te rm i nation tha

t the gove rnm e nt ha d m e t its burde n. The gove rnm e n t provide d e vide nc e tha t B oota Singh B a si a

nd Ka sm ir Singh M a l hi ha d

pre pa re d Singh’ s a sy lum

a p plic ation, a

nd tha t the y ha d ple d guilty

to running a c rim ina l busine ss pre pa

ring fra udule n t a sy lum

a pplic ations. B a si te stifie d e xte nsive ly

a bout thesc he m e and, whe n provide d a c opy of Singh’ s a pplic a tion, ide ntifie d its na rrat ive a s one of the busine ss’ s fa lse stoc k storie s. B a si a lso e la

borate d on fra

udule nt de t a ils in Singh’ s a pplic ation, e xpla ining, for
2e xam

ple , tha t Singh’ s a lle ge d a

rre st da te wa s a m a j or Sikh holida

y c hose n for the date ’ s e a sy

m e m ora bility
. The IJ found tha

t B a si’ s te stim ony

wa s truthful,
unre butte d, a

nd unim pe a c he d. In c ontra st, Singh wa s unsure of the de ta ils of his
own a sy lum

na rra t ive , a dm i tte d tha

t he worke d with B a si a

nd M a lhi, a

nd offe re d no othe r e vide nc e in support of his c la im s. W e ighing thete stim ony an d the
c re d ibility

of the witne sse s, the IJ found the re wa s a showing of fra

ud in Singh’ s a pplic a tion. B e c a

use a re a sona ble fa c tfinde r would not be c o m p e lle d to c onc lude othe rwise , the a ge nc y ’ s finding of fra ud is supporte d by

substa ntia l e vide nc e . 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(4)(B ); se e Fe rnande s v . Holde r , 619 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th C ir. 2010). B e c a

use the sa m e findings underlie the IJ’ s orde r de ny ing Singh re lie f from
re m ova l, substa

ntia l e vide nc e a lso supports tha t de te rm ination. Se e Farah , 348 F.3d at 1156–57
. Fina lly , at his he aring on July 14, 2015, Singh c onc e de d tha t he
wa s re m ova

ble for both grounds c ha

rge d on his Notic e to Appe ar. “ [W ] he re the
a lie n c o nc e de s re m o va

b i lity , the gove rnm e nt’ s burde n . . . is sa t isfie d.” Shin v
. Muk ase y , 547 F.3d 1019, 1024 (9th C ir. 2008) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d). Singh m ake s thre e a dditiona l a rgum e nts to us. First, Singh a rgue s tha t he
wa s de prive d of a

n opportunity

to m e aningfully

re ply to the gove rnm e nt’ s m otion to te rm inate a sy lum sta

tus. This a

rgum e nt fa ils for two re a sons. First, Singh
re c e ive d the gove rnm e nt’ s m otion but did not re spond within the tim e fra m e within
3whic h a

pe titione r m

ust ordina rily re spond. Se e Im

m igration C ourt Pra c tic e M an ua l §§ 3.1(b)(i)(A), 5.5. Se c ond, e ve n a ssum ing tha t suc h a tim e fra m e is not
e nough tim e for a m e an ingful re sponse , the B IA ne ve rthe le ss c onside re d (and
re je c te d) Singh’ s re sponse to the gove rnm e nt’ s m otion on the m e rits. Ne xt, Singh a

rgue s tha t he wa s de prive d of due proc e ss be c a use the IJ fa ile d to re quire the gove rnm e nt to pre se nt B a si for c ross-e xam ination. This is fa lse . On M arc h 11, 2011, the

IJ he ld a he aring in whic h

B a si te stifie d, Singh’ s c ounse l c ross e xam ine d B a si, a

nd sim u lta ne ous tra nsla tion wa s provide d

to Singh. Fina lly , Singh a

rgue s for the first tim e be fore this c ourt tha t he “ re li[e d] , unde r dure ss” o n

B a si’ s m isre pre se ntations, a n d tha t suc h dure ss e xc u se s his fraudule nt a

pplic a tion. Eve n if a

dure ss e x c e p tion to filing a fraudule nt a sy lum
a pplic a tion we re to e xist, the re is no indic ation in the re c ord tha t Singh wa s unde r dure ss a t a ny point in ma

king his a pplic ation. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

4