Jagdev Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 552 F. App'x 734 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 21 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAGDEV SINGH, No. 10-70922
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-495-155
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 14, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.***
Jagdev Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“the Board”) adopting and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 Jane A. Restani, Judge for the U.S. Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his claims for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
The IJ denied Singh’s claims based on a finding of lack of credibility and held in
the alternative that even if Singh’s testimony were credible, Singh would not be
entitled to asylum or withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We deny the petition on the basis of the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination.
To the extent the Board expressly adopts the IJ’s findings and reasoning, we
review the decision of the IJ as if it were that of the Board. Al-Harbi v. INS, 242
F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 2001). In this pre-REAL ID Act1 case, we review factual
determinations, including credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001). We must affirm the
denial of relief unless the evidence compels the conclusion that the petitioner is
eligible for relief. See id.
The Board’s affirmance of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was
supported by substantial evidence. In particular, the IJ found that Singh’s
testimony did not ring true because Singh failed to mention eight additional arrests
by the Indian police until cross-examination. This inconsistency with Singh’s
1
REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231.
2
asylum application and direct testimony went “to the heart of the asylum claim”
that the police persecuted him because they suspected he was involved with Sikh
militants. See Mendoza Manimbao v. Ashcroft, 329 F.3d 655, 660 (9th Cir. 2003).
The IJ and the Board were not required to accept Singh’s explanations that he
simply forgot to mention these incidents or failed to realize their importance. See
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ not compelled to accept
applicant’s explanation for failing to mention additional incidents in the “light of
the importance of the omitted incidents”); Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1182
(9th Cir. 2011) (even in cases not governed by the REAL ID Act, IJs may rely on
common sense when making credibility determinations). Because Singh’s
testimony was essential to each of his claims, Singh’s claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156–57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.
3