N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JASKAR AN SINGH, Pe t i tione r, v. M ERR IC K B . GARLAND, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 20-73007 Age n c y No. A208-205-877 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 a nd Subm i tte d August 11, 2022 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : C HR ISTEN, LEE, a n d FOR REST, C i rc uit Judge s. Pe titione r Ja ska

ran Singh, a

native and c itiz e n of India , se e ks re vie w of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a l s’ (“ B IA” ) de c ision a ffirm ing the Im m igration Judge ’ s (“ IJ” ) de nia l of a sy l um , withholding of re m ova l, a nd prote c tion unde r the C onve ntion Aga inst Torture(“ C AT” ). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 8 U.S.C . § 

# FIL ED AUG 16 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 36-3.1252, a

nd we de ny

the pe t ition. B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with the fa c ts of this c a s e , we ne e d not re c ite the m he re . Substa ntia l e v i de nc e supports the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation. Se e Shre

stha v
. Holde r , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–42 (9th C i r. 2010) (stating sta

nda rd of re vie w). “ Whe re , a s he re , the B IA c ite s Burbano and a l so provide s its own re vie w of the e vide nc e and la w , we re vie w both the IJ’ s an d the B IA’ s de c isions.” Ruiz-C olme nare s v . Garland

, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th C ir. 2022) (c ita tion omitte d). The a ge n c y

found pe titione r’ s sta

te m e nts not c re d ible be c a use , a lthough pe titione r te stifie d tha

t the polic e told him

tha t the y would fa lse ly

a c c use him , be at him up, a nd throw him

in ja il if he c am e ba c k to the polic e , pe titione r did not
m e ntion thepolic e thre at

in his c re d ible fe ar inte rvie w. Pe titione r argue s tha t the a sy lum offic e r did not provide him an opportunity

to inc lude the polic e thre ats during his a sy lum offic e inte rvie w a nd sta te d tha t he trie d to providete stim o ny to the o ffic e r to e xpla i n the polic e thre ats but theoffic e r stoppe d him
. As the IJ note d, howe ve r, the re is no indic ation in the re c o rd tha

t pe titione r wa s pre ve nte d from providing information re late d to the polic e thre ats. Inde e d, the a s y l um offic e r a ske d pe t itione r m

ultipleque s tions to e lic i t te stim ony a b o ut his fe ar of the polic e , spe c ific que stions a

bout thepolic e , and ope n -e nde d que stions. Se e Silv a-Pe re ira v
. 2Ly nc h , 827 F.3d 1176, 1185–87 (9th C ir. 2016) (a ffirm ing the a ge nc y ’ s a dve rse

c re d ibility

de te rm inat ion in pa

rt be c a use pe titione r fa ile d to disc l ose “ pivota l” or

“ c ruc ia l ” e ve nts, or e ve nts tha t would c re ate a

m ore c om

pe lling fe ar of pe rse c ution). As a n othe r e xam

ple , pe titione r te stifie d

tha t a fte r he le ft India , his pa re nts told him m e m be rs of the polic e , the B a d a l Pa rty , a nd the B JP Party

c a m e to the ir house to look for him

thre e to four tim e s be c a

use of his a ffilia

t ion with the

M ann Party . B ut pe titione r’ s fathe r’ s a ffidavit did not m e ntion the se inc i de nts, a

n d he wa s not c a lle d

to te stify a s a witne ss. The a ge nc y

c onside re d pe t itione r’ s e xpla nations, inc luding tha

t his fa the r is not e duc ate d, but re j e c te d the m . Shre

stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1044 (“ [I] n e va luating inc onsiste nc ie s, the re le va nt c irc um sta

nc e s tha t an IJ should c o nside r inc lude the pe titione r’ s e xpla n at ion for a

pe rc e ive d inc o nsiste nc y , a

nd othe r re c o rd e vide nc e tha t she ds light on whethe r the re is in fa c t an inc onsiste nc y

at a ll.” (c ita

tion omitte d )). The a ge nc y prope rly c onside re d “ the tota lity of the c irc um s ta

nc e s [] and a ll re le va

nt fa c tors.” 8 U.S.C . § 1158(b)(1)(B )(iii). Pe titione r ha s fa ile d to show tha t the re c o rd c om

pe ls us to re a c h a c ontra ry c onc lusion. Se e Don v
. Gonzale s , 476 F.3d 738, 745 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ Although a

re a sona ble fa c tfinde r c o uld ha

ve found Pe titione r c re d ible , no suc h finding is c om

pe lle d by the e vide nc e .” (e m

pha se s om i tte d)). 3Substa ntia l e v i de nc e a lso supports the a ge nc y ’ s de nia l of pe titione r’ s c la im for prote c tion unde r C AT. Se e Shre stha , 590 F.3d a

t 1048 (sta

ting sta nda rd of re vie w). “ An a dve rse c re dibility de te rm i nation is not ne c e ssa rily a de ath kne ll to C AT prote c tion.” Id. B ut be c a use pe titione r’ s te s tim ony wa s found not c re dible , othe r e vide nc e in the re c ord m u st c om pe l the c onc lusion tha

t he “ is m ore like ly tha n not to betorture d .” Se e id. at 1048–49 (c ita t ion om itte d). The a g e nc y did not e rr in c onc luding tha

t pe titione r is not e ntitle d to prote c tion unde r C AT be c a use the re wa s insuffic ie nt obje c tive e vide nc e , be y ond pe titione r’ s disc re dite d te stim ony , to de m onstra

te tha t he is m ore like ly

tha n not to betorture d if re turne d. Pe titione r fa ile d to m e e t his burde n of e sta blishing e ligibility

for withholding of re m ova l or prote c tion unde r C AT. S e e id. PE T IT IO N DE NIE D.

4