Tajinder Singh v. Jefferson Sessions ( 2017 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 06 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAJINDER PAL SINGH, No. 14-70554
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-890-506
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 4, 2017**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, RAWLINSON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Tajinder Pal Singh (Singh) petitions for review of the decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the order of the
*
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).
Immigration Judge (IJ) denying Singh’s applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
1. The BIA acted within its discretion in upholding the IJ’s assessment
of Singh’s mental capacity. See Mejia v. Sessions, 868 F.3d 1118, 1121 (9th Cir.
2017) (reviewing application of Matter of M-A-M-, 25 I. & N. Dec. 474, 480 (BIA
2011) for abuse of discretion). After Singh expressed concerns about his mental
functioning, the IJ conducted an inquiry into his competency. The IJ questioned
Singh about psychological care and noted that there was no evidence of mental
health treatment. The IJ asked Singh if he understood the nature and purpose of
the proceedings and Singh indicated that he did. The IJ noted that even though
Singh had appeared pro se, he had consulted with his prior attorney, answered the
IJ’s questions, capably commented on the admission of documents, and presented
his case. The IJ specifically found that Singh was competent to proceed.
2. The IJ’s adverse credibility determination was supported by
substantial evidence and the IJ provided Singh ample opportunity to explain the
discrepancies in his testimony, considered the proffered explanations, and
identified cogent reasons for rejecting the explanations. See Yali Wang v. Sessions,
861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (reviewing adverse credibility determination
for substantial evidence). Significantly, the IJ noted that there were inconsistencies
2
between Singh’s testimony and his asylum application concerning the date of his
arrests, duration of his detentions, mistreatment suffered in detention, medical
attention received after release, and his political party.
3. Singh’s proceedings were not “so fundamentally unfair that [he] was
prevented from reasonably presenting his case.” Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007,
1013 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted), as amended. The IJ advised Singh of his
procedural rights and developed a thorough record. Singh has also not made the
required showing of prejudice. Thus, no due process violation occurred. See id.
4. The BIA explicitly cited the country conditions evidence in affirming
the IJ’s denial of protection under the CAT for lack of evidence that Singh would
be tortured “by or with the acquiescence of government authorities” if returned to
India. Substantial evidence supports the denial of CAT relief. See Yali Wang, 861
F.3d at 1007.
PETITION DENIED.
3