Court Opinion

ID: 9384075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 18:00:37.168275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:50.287333
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAR 31 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PARDEEP SINGH,                                  No. 22-237

              Petitioner,                       Agency No.       A216-274-464

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

              Respondent.

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

                            Submitted March 29, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: BOGGS,*** M. SMITH, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

       Petitioner Pardeep Singh, a citizen of India, challenges the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration

Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture. The parties are familiar

       *
            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 Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
with the facts, so we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to

8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

      “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both

decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018).

We review the agency’s adverse credibility determinations for substantial

evidence, Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013), and can reverse

such determinations only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to

conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

      Substantial    evidence    supports     the   agency’s    adverse    credibility

determination in this case.        The agency accurately pointed to several

inconsistencies in the record that undermine Petitioner’s credibility. See Shrestha

v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that inconsistencies,

considered in light of “the totality of the circumstances,” may support an adverse

credibility finding (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii))).

      First, Petitioner made inconsistent representations about his injuries from

the first attack. He stated in his declaration that his back was bruised, and then

testified at his hearing that he suffered internal injuries and hurt his knee, while

his doctor’s note refers to scratches and a knee injury. Petitioner argues that his

doctor’s note merely omitted unimportant details about his injuries. However, it

is unlikely that the doctor would have omitted reference to a back injury or

internal injuries, as they are not minor or ancillary to the injuries described in the

letter. This explanation also does not account for the inconsistencies between

                                          2                                     22-237
Petitioner’s own statements.       Second, Petitioner testified that he received

bandages and ointment from his doctor after the incident, which his doctor’s note

fails to mention, despite describing other treatments Petitioner received.

      Third, Petitioner gave inconsistent explanations for why he did not report

the first attack. Although he first stated that he did not take the incident seriously,

he later contended that the incident was “grave” but he did not report it because

he did not want to “create more problems.” He did not provide an adequate

explanation for this inconsistency, despite being given the opportunity to do so in

his hearing. Taken together, these inconsistencies provide substantial evidence

supporting the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at

1043; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                          3                                      22-237