NO T F O R P UBLI CATI O N

UNI T E D S T A T E S COURT OF A P P E A L S

F OR T H E NI NT H CI RCUI T

B A L K A R S I NGH , P eti ti o n er ,

v
. WI L L I A M P

. B A RR, A ttor n ey Gen er al , Res pon d en

t. No. 18- 72301

A g en cy No. A 202- 067- 691

M E M O RA

NDUM *

On P eti ti on f or Rev i ew of

an Or der of th e B oar d of I m

m i g r ati on A ppeal s
S u bm i tted October 8, 2020 * * S eattl e, Was h i n g ton

B ef or e: GRA B E R an d W. F L E T CH E R, Ci r cu i t J u dg es , an d K OB A YA S H I , * * * Di str i ct J u dg e.
P eti ti on er B al kar S i n g h i s a n ati v e an d ci ti zen of I n di a. H e s eeks r ev i ew of
th e B oar d of I m

m i g r ati on A ppeal s ’ ( “ B I A ”) f

i n al or der af

f i r m i n g th e i m m i g r ati on 

# FI L E D

OCT 14 2020

M O LLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. COURT OF APPEAL S

* T h i s di s pos i ti on

i s n ot appr opr i ate f

o r p u bl i cati on an d i s n o t pr eceden t ex cept as pr ov i ded by Ni n th Ci r cu i t Ru l e 36- 3.

* * T h e pan el u

n an i m ou s l y con cl u des th i s cas e i s s u i t abl e f o r d eci s i on wi t h ou t or al ar g u m en t. See F ed. R. A

pp. P

. 34( a) ( 2 )

.

* * * T h e H on or abl e L es l i e E

. K obay as h i , Un i t ed S t ates Di s tr i ct J u dg e f or th e D i s tr i ct of H awai i , si tti n g by des i g n ati on

.ju dg e’ s ( “ I J ”) den i al of h i s appl i cati on s f o r as y l u m , w i th h ol di n g o f r em o v al , an d

pr otecti on u

n d er th e Con

v en ti on A g ai n s t T or

t u r e ( “ CA T ”)

. We den

y th e peti ti on

. T h e I J f ou n d P eti ti on er n ot cr edi bl e, an d th e B I A af f i r m ed t h e adv er s e

cr edi bi l i ty d eter

m i n ati on

. We r ev i ew an

adv er se cr edi bi l i ty f

i n di n g f o r su bs tan ti al

ev i den ce. Shr es tha v. Holder , 590 F

. 3d 1034, 1039 ( 9th Ci r

. 2010)

. “ [ W] e m u s t

u ph o l d th e I J ’ s adv er s e cr edi bi l i ty deter m i n ati on s o l on g as ev en on e bas i s i s

s u ppor ted by s u b stan t i al ev i den ce. ” R iz k v. Holder , 6 29 F .3d 1083, 1088 ( 9th Ci r

. 2011)

. T h e B I A r eci ted an d r el i ed on ev i den ce th at am pl y s u ppor ted th e adv er s e

cr edi bi l i ty f

i n di n g , i n cl

u d i n g i n con s i s ten ci es between P eti ti on er ’ s tes ti m on y an d
docu m en tar y ev i den ce. P eti ti o n er t es ti f i ed t h at h e h ad been attacked an d beaten
wi t h s ti cks on

two occas i on s by m em

ber s of an oth er pol i ti cal par ty ; h owev er , a

wr i tten docu

m en t pu r por t i n g t o h av e been

pr epar ed by h i s own par

ty r ecou n ted
th at P eti ti on er w as “ m an

y ti m es ar r es ted an d t or

tu r ed by state pol i ce. ” T wo
docu m en ts con cer n i n g th e l en g t h of P eti ti on er ’ s m

edi cal tr eatm

en t w er e
i n con s i s ten

t wi t h each oth er

. P eti ti on er ’ s tes ti m on y was al so i n con s i s ten

t wi th a
decl ar ati on by h i s wi f

e con cer n i n g wh o wen

t to th e pol i ce s tati on

to r epor t th e
beati n g s an d w h o r ecei v ed th r eaten i n g ph on e cal l s

. W h i l e P eti ti on er tes ti f i ed th at

2h i s f

ath er r ecei v ed th e cal l s an d r el ay ed th em to h i s wi f e, h i s w i f e r epor ted th at s h e

r ecei v ed t h em d i r ectl y an d as a r es u l t h ad to ch an g e h er tel eph on e n u m b er

. P eti ti on er was as ked abou

t t h es e i n con si s ten ci es an d was g i v en an

oppor t u n i ty to ex p l ai n t h em

. S ee R en v. Holder , 648 F

. 3d 1 079, 1092 n .14 ( 9th Ci r

. 2011) ( d es cr i

bi n g h ow th e B I A m

u s t g i v e a peti ti on er an o p por tu n i ty to ex pl ai n

an y i n con s i s ten cy th at i s r el i ed on f or an adv er s e cr edi bi l i ty deter m i n ati on )

. T h e I J

con s i der ed P eti ti on er ’ s ex pl an ati on s bu

t f ou n d th em i n s u f

f i ci en t, an d th e B I A
f ou n d th i s deter

m i n ati on to be wi th ou

t cl ear er r or

. We con cl u de th at P eti ti o n er ’ s

ex pl an ati on s do n ot com

p el a con tr ar y con cl u s i on

. 8 U. S

. C. § 1 252( b) ( 4) ( B )

. T h e B I A ’ s den i al o f P eti ti on er ’ s el i g i bi l i ty f or as y l u m an d wi t h h ol di n g was

pr oper l y m ade u

pon th e adv er s e cr edi bi l i ty f i n di n g wh i ch w as s u

p por ted by

s u bs tan ti al ev i den ce. See F

ar ah v. A s hcr oft , 3 48 F .3d 1153, 1156 ( 9th Ci r

. 2 003)

. T h e B I A al s o con s i der ed th e r em ai n i n g r ecor d as a wh ol e an d pr oper l y deter m i n ed
th at th e P eti ti on er f

ai l ed to es tabl i s h a cog n i zabl e cl ai m u n der CA T

. I

d. at 1156–57; Shr es tha, 590 F

. 3d at 1049.

P ETI TI O N DENI ED.

3