Court Opinion

ID: 9387086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-14 18:00:26.380698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:11.278562
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-214, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 27.1, Page 1 of 3

                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         APR 14 2023
                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDEEP SINGH,                                  No. 22-214
                                                Agency No. A216-578-955
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                              Submitted April 12, 2023**
                               San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,***
District Judge.

      On August 15, 2018, Sandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, applied for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      ***
            The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
                Case: 22-214, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 27.1, Page 2 of 3

Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) assigned to Singh’s case denied his

application, basing that decision on the IJ’s determination that Singh was not

credible. Singh appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which

affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed his appeal. Singh then petitioned this Court

for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

      “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with and incorporates specific findings of the

IJ while adding its own reasoning, we review both decisions.” Bhattarai v. Lynch,

835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We review factual findings for substantial

evidence. Id. To reverse a credibility determination in particular, “we must find that

the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it.” Rizk v.

Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting INS v.

Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992)), overruled in part on other grounds

by Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135–37 (9th Cir. 2021).

      An adverse credibility determination may be based on “all relevant factors,”

including “the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements”

and “the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . .” 18

U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(C). Regardless of the factors relied upon by the IJ, the IJ must

provide “specific and cogent reasons” for the adverse credibility finding. Shrestha

v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010).

      Here, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was based on inconsistencies

                                          2
                Case: 22-214, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 27.1, Page 3 of 3

between Singh’s in-court testimony and other evidence. Those inconsistencies

concerned the location of an injury that Singh claimed to have suffered during a

knife attack in 2017. In court, Singh testified that he had been stabbed in his left

hand. However, in a sworn declaration, Singh wrote that he had been stabbed in his

shoulder. Additionally, Singh’s father—who was present at the hospital where Singh

was treated for his knife wound—also asserted, in an affidavit, that Singh had been

stabbed in the shoulder. When Singh was given an opportunity to explain these

apparent inconsistencies, he provided an explanation that the IJ found to be

unconvincing.1 The IJ then determined that these unexplained inconsistencies with

respect to Singh’s injury cast doubt on the entirety of Singh’s testimony. Manes v.

Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 2017) (the BIA may give “substantial

weight” to inconsistencies that bear directly on the applicant’s claims).

      As the IJ offered specific, cogent reasons for disbelieving Singh’s testimony

and rejecting his explanations for the inconsistency, the IJ’s adverse credibility

determination is supported by substantial evidence, and the BIA did not err in

dismissing Singh’s appeal. Accordingly, Singh’s petition for review is DENIED.

      1
             The IJ also confirmed with the court’s Punjabi interpreter that the
Punjabi language has different words for “shoulder,” “hand,” and “arm.” While
Singh asserts that it was “unreasonable” and “erroneous” for the IJ to rely on the
court interpreter for information about Punjabi, he provides no specific reasons to
doubt the interpreter’s competence.

                                          3