Court Opinion

ID: 9389490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 18:01:50.584923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.037671
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         APR 25 2023
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASCHARAN SINGH; RAJINDER KAUR,                 No. 22-603
                                                Agency Nos.
             Petitioners,                       A075-016-843
                                                A075-251-103
 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney                    MEMORANDUM*
General,

             Respondent.

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

                            Submitted April 20, 2023**
                             San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

      Petitioners Jascharan Singh and Rajinder Kaur, natives and citizens of

India, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of

their appeal from a final order of removal. The BIA’s order terminated their

asylum status and held them removable under § 208(c)(2)(A) of the Immigration

      *
            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).
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(c)(2)(A), for a showing of fraud in Singh’s

asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.24(f). In its order, the BIA upheld the

Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility determination and concluded that

Singh was not eligible for asylum at the time he was granted it. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Guo v.

Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018), we deny the petition.

      Asylum may be terminated upon a showing of fraud in Singh’s asylum

application such that he was not eligible for asylum at the time it was granted.

8 C.F.R. § 1208.24(f). Here, Singh admits his first application for asylum was

fraudulent. He argues only that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s adverse

credibility determination and subsequently concluding that Singh was not eligible

for asylum at the time it was granted. We disagree.

      Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. We

treat the BIA’s credibility findings as “conclusive unless any reasonable

adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Flores Molina v.

Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022). Singh admits he knowingly lied on

his first application for asylum in 1993, filing it under a false name and birth date.

He also admits the application contained several false statements like that he was

part of a student political organization, that his house was burned down by a mob,

and that his family members were arrested and raped by local police in 1992.

These were not minor inconsistencies, as Singh contends. Rather, they were

deliberate fabrications that “cast[] doubt on [Singh’s] credibility and the rest of

                                          2                                     22-603
his story.” Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). These false

statements, along with Singh’s several other misrepresentations and critical

omissions throughout various hearings and applications for asylum, constitute

substantial evidence supporting the BIA’s decision. See id.

      Substantial evidence therefore supports the BIA’s decision that Singh did

not qualify for asylum at the time it was granted. And because Kaur’s asylum

status derived from Singh’s, the BIA did not err in terminating Kaur’s asylum

status either. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(d).

      PETITION DENIED.

                                           3                              22-603