Court Opinion

ID: 4347571
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-12-05 21:00:31.112349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:21:09.433728
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 5 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RANJIT SINGH,                                   No.    17-73273

                Petitioner,                     Agency No. A208-562-314

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,

                Respondent.

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

                          Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before:      CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

      Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

      *
             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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,

applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the

REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We

deny the petition for review.

      Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on omissions in Singh’s credible fear interview and on inconsistencies

between Singh’s declaration, testimony, and documentary evidence as to the date

and number of times Singh was arrested and harmed in India. See Zamanov v.

Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (omission constituting a material

alteration of petitioner’s story may support an adverse credibility determination);

Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the

totality of the circumstances). Singh’s explanations do not compel a contrary

conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence

of credible testimony, in this case, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal

claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

      Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the

agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the

conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India.

See id. at 1156-57.

      Finally, we reject Singh’s contentions that the agency did not consider all of

                                          2                                    17-73273
his evidence.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                             3      17-73273