Court Opinion

ID: 9393562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 17:01:03.937794+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.971608
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                         FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MAY 10 2023
                                                                   MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARNEK SINGH,                                 No. 22-981
                                              Agency No.
            Petitioner,                       A205-935-145
 v.
                                              MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

            Respondent.

HARNEK SINGH,                                 No. 22-1850
            Petitioner,                       Agency No.
                                              A205-935-145
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

            Respondent.

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

                           Submitted May 8, 2023 **
                           San Francisco, California

Before: CHRISTEN and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and ANTOON, District

      *
            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).
Judge.***

      Harnek Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a

decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of an

Immigration Judge (IJ) order denying his applications for asylum, withholding of

removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh

also petitions for review of the BIA’s later denial of his motion to reopen his

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the

petitions.

      1.     Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of asylum and

withholding of removal based on the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. See

Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 1060 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard of review for

asylum and withholding of removal); Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th

Cir. 2014) (“We review factual findings, including adverse credibility

determinations, for substantial evidence.”).      Under the substantial evidence

standard, the agency’s “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.”              8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(b)(4)(B).

      To support an adverse credibility finding, “[t]he [agency] must have a

legitimate articulable basis to question the petitioner’s credibility, and must offer

***
       The Honorable John Antoon II, United States District Judge for the Middle
District of Florida, sitting by designation.

                                         2
a specific, cogent reason for any stated disbelief.” Martinez v. Holder, 557 F.3d

1059, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Valderrama v. INS, 260 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th

Cir. 2001)).    “There is no bright-line rule under which some number of

inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility

determination . . . .” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en

banc). Instead, “we must look to the ‘totality of the circumstances[ ] and all

relevant   factors.’”     Id.   (alteration   in   original)   (quoting   8   U.S.C.

§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)).   One such factor is “the consistency between the

[petitioner’s] written and oral statements.”        8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).

Credibility determinations may be made “without regard to whether an

inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the [petitioner’s]

claim.” Id.

      Here, the BIA found that Singh’s testimony was not credible because it was

inconsistent with his prior sworn statement and declaration. In particular, Singh

was inconsistent about whether he had been beaten by members of the Congress

Party; whether his injuries required professional medical attention; and whether

his political involvement with the Mann Party went beyond just voting for its

candidates.    During cross-examination, Singh acknowledged all of these

inconsistencies.

      The record does not compel the conclusion that Singh’s testimony was

credible. Singh’s “inability to consistently describe the underlying events that

gave rise to his fear was an important factor that could be relied upon by the IJ in

                                         3
making an adverse credibility determination.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d

1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010). And his embellishment of his account of persecution

further undermined his credibility. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176,

1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that adverse credibility determinations can be

supported based on the petitioner offering new allegations that “tell a much

different—and more compelling—story of persecution than [the] initial

application” (alteration in original) (quotations omitted)). Although Singh tried

to explain the inconsistencies, the BIA could conclude that his explanations were

not persuasive. And absent credible testimony, substantial evidence supports the

denial of asylum and withholding of removal.

      2.     Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See

Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1066 (standard of review). Singh’s evidentiary support for his

claim that he would likely be tortured in India consisted of his discredited

testimony and general background country condition information, which the BIA

considered. This generalized evidence does not compel the conclusion that Singh

will more likely than not be tortured if he is removed to India. See Delgado-Ortiz

v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (finding that

“generalized evidence of violence and crime” in the country of origin was “not

particular to Petitioners” and was thus “insufficient to meet” the standard for CAT

relief); Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding

that discredited testimony and general country reports of torture did not compel

a grant of CAT protection).

                                        4
      3.       The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Singh’s motion to

reopen to pursue adjustment of status following his marriage to a U.S. citizen and

his related filing of a visa application. See Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland, 32 F.4th

794, 800 (9th Cir. 2022) (standard of review). Singh offered no evidence that his

visa application was approved. And “[w]hen an alien enters into a marriage

following the completion of removal proceedings, it is presumed that the purpose

is to ‘procur[e] the alien’s admission as an immigrant.’” Sharma v. Holder, 633

F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2011) (second alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C.

§ 1255(e)(3)). “To overcome this presumption, an applicant filing a motion with

the Board to reopen removal proceedings must ‘present[ ] clear and convincing

evidence indicating a strong likelihood that the [petitioner’s] marriage is bona

fide.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 994 (9th

Cir. 2003)).

      Here, as the BIA noted, there was no “direct evidence showing joint

tenancy of a common residence,” no evidence “as to when this couple met, how

they met, or the exact nature of their relationship,” and “no affidavits from third

parties having knowledge of the bona fides of the relationship.” Because Singh

has not demonstrated that his “motivation for marriage” was “based on an actual

and legitimate relationship,” Malhi, 336 F.3d at 994, the BIA did not abuse its

discretion by denying the motion to reopen. Nor has Singh demonstrated any

                                        5
other error in the BIA’s decision. 1

        PETITIONS DENIED.

1
    Singh’s motion for stay of removal is denied as moot.

                                         6