Court Opinion

ID: 9395297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-17 18:00:38.424737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:07.073829
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAY 17 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARPREET SINGH,                                 No. 22-1186
                                                Agency No.
             Petitioner,                        A209-171-321
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted May 11, 2023**
                            San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Harpreet Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(BIA’s) order dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) decision

denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

      *
            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).
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1 We have jurisdiction pursuant

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

      1. We conclude substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse

credibility determination. The IJ determined that Petitioner’s testimony was not

credible, in part because he belatedly reported an incident in which Indian

policemen allegedly kidnapped him, tortured him, and falsely arrested him for a

drug crime. Petitioner did not include this information in his credible fear

interview, asylum application, or initial personal declaration, but rather raised it

for the first time in a second personal declaration submitted two months before

his removal hearing was scheduled to take place. Petitioner offered various

explanations for his late disclosure, but the IJ did not find those explanations

plausible, and considering the totality of the evidence, a reasonable adjudicator

would not be “compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Nasrallah v. Barr, 140

S. Ct. 1683, 1692 (2020) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Though

Petitioner argues the IJ improperly determined his testimony per se lacked

credibility because it included more details than he gave in his asylum

application, Petitioner’s late disclosure did more than supplement his asylum

application—it introduced a wholly new basis for relief that was either false or

showed that Petitioner had not provided a reliable account during his credible

1
      The BIA considered the CAT claim waived because Petitioner did not
contest the IJ’s CAT determination, and Petitioner raises no arguments on
appeal to our court concerning his CAT claim.

                                         2                                     22-1186
fear interview and on his asylum application. Either way, the new disclosure

supported an adverse credibility finding. Moreover, the IJ’s adverse credibility

determination relied on several other discrepancies, implausibilities, and

omissions, findings that were supported by substantial evidence.

      Petitioner’s arguments regarding other aspects of the IJ’s adverse

credibility determination are similarly ill-fated. The record contradicts his

argument that the IJ had no basis for finding Petitioner testified that villagers

brought him to the hospital after Badal Party members attacked him, and the IJ

could properly give less weight to a non-contemporaneous medical document

that Petitioner submitted. See Matter of Pineda, 20 I. & N. Dec. 70, 73 (B.I.A.

1989).

      2. We also conclude the BIA did not err in denying Petitioner’s due

process claim. In evaluating mistranslation claims, this court has identified

three types of evidence that “tend to prove a translation was incompetent”: (1)

“direct evidence of incorrectly translated words,” (2) “unresponsive answers by

the witness,” and (3) “the witness’s expression of difficulty understanding what

is said to him.” Perez-Lastor v. INS, 208 F.3d 773, 778 (9th Cir. 2000). On

appeal to this court, Petitioner argues mistranslations by his interpreter “caused

the IJ to believe Mr. Singh was repeating factual allegations regarding his claim

for political asylum, when in fact he was not.” Petitioner does not elaborate on

what this statement means, and he does not identify any direct mistranslation or

evidence of unresponsive answers or confusion. Because Petitioner has failed

                                         3                                      22-1186
to identify any evidence of mistranslation, his claim fails.

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

                                         4                     22-1186