Court Opinion

ID: 9388031
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 18:01:04.358392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:17.078004
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-218, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 23.1, Page 1 of 4

                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                          APR 19 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NARINDERJIT KAUR; KARAMJIT                       No. 22-218
SINGH; NAVJOT KAUR,
                                                 Agency Nos.     A095-559-556
              Petitioners,                                       A098-538-873
                                                                 A098-133-119
  v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney                MEMORANDUM*
General,

              Respondent.

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

                             Submitted April 17, 2023**
                              San Francisco, California

Before: VANDYKE and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges, and VRATIL,*** District
Judge.

       Petitioners Narinderjit Kaur (Kaur), Karamjit Singh (Singh), and Navjot

Kaur (Navjot) are natives and citizens of India. Kaur and Singh are spouses and

       *
            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 Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for
the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.
               Case: 22-218, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 23.1, Page 2 of 4

Navjot is their adult daughter. They seek review of the Board of Immigration

Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) adverse

credibility determinations against Kaur and Singh.1 We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

      We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence. Singh v.

Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1268–69 (9th Cir. 2011). Under that standard, our

“only question” is “whether any reasonable adjudicator” could have reached the

same conclusion as the agency. Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669, 1678

(2021); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530, 536

(9th Cir. 2013) (“Under the substantial evidence standard, an adverse credibility

finding is conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to

conclude to the contrary.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Where, as here,

the BIA “conduct[ed] its own review of the evidence and law rather than

adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to

the extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590

F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted).

1
  The IJ pretermitted Kaur’s application for a waiver of removability and, based
on an adverse credibility determination, denied Kaur’s application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). Kaur sought to include Singh and Navjot as derivative beneficiaries in
her denied asylum application. Petitioners did not appeal the IJ’s pretermission
of their waiver application to the BIA, nor did they appeal a separate IJ decision
finding them removable. Before this Court, Petitioners challenge only the
adverse credibility determination underlying the BIA’s denial of Kaur’s asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT claims.

                                         2
               Case: 22-218, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 23.1, Page 3 of 4

      Substantial evidence supported the BIA’s adverse credibility

determinations. An adverse credibility determination may be based on the

“responsiveness of the applicant or witness,” “the consistency between the

applicant’s . . . written and oral statements,” or “the consistency of such

statements with other evidence of record.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see

Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 2021). The BIA noted a

significant discrepancy between Kaur’s written asylum application and the

testimony Kaur and Singh provided during their hearing before the agency in

2019. Specifically, Kaur wrote in her application and testified at the hearing

that police officers came to their house while Singh was sleeping, interrogated

him, and attempted to arrest him. Singh, meanwhile, testified that he managed

to avoid interacting with the police altogether by fleeing the house before they

arrived. The BIA observed that Kaur and Singh failed to explain the

inconsistency and refused to answer questions about it. The BIA’s decision

reflects that it considered the appropriate statutory factors under a totality of the

circumstances and reached a conclusion consistent with the evidence. See Dong

v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291, 1297 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Inconsistencies in an

applicant’s testimony may support an adverse credibility determination.”);

Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 839 (9th Cir. 2021) (upholding adverse

credibility finding based on noncitizen’s “evasiveness and non-

responsiveness”).

      We reject Petitioners’ argument that the BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse

                                          3
                 Case: 22-218, 04/19/2023, DktEntry: 23.1, Page 4 of 4

credibility finding based on “speculation and conjecture.” The BIA relied on

the same inconsistencies identified by the IJ, which Petitioners declined to

address at the agency’s 2019 hearing.

        PETITION DENIED.2

2
    The temporary stay of removal remains in effect until issuance of the mandate.

                                          4