Mohabbat Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 9 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHABBAT PAUL SINGH, No. 12-70356
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-665-760
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Mohabbat Paul Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”), and denying his motion to remand. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying
the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID
Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review for
an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand, Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey,
538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008), and review de novo due process claims,
Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny the
petition for review.
Singh admitted he told an asylum officer the Indian police subjected him to
electrical shocks, but he failed to include this allegation in his asylum application,
direct testimony, or his testimony on cross-examination, despite having numerous
opportunities to do so. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination based on this omission. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1040-
44 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of
circumstances). Singh’s explanations, including nervousness and embarrassment,
do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000). Contrary to his contention, the IJ addressed his explanations. In addition,
the record does not compel the finding that the documentary evidence Singh
submitted was sufficient to rehabilitate his credibility. See Guo v. Ashcroft, 361
2 12-70356
F.3d 1194, 1201 (9th Cir. 2004). In the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s
asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
In light of the adverse credibility determination, the agency was not required
to separately consider Singh’s eligibility for humanitarian asylum. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 1208.13(b)(1)(iii) (requiring showing of past persecution).
Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same statements
found not credible, and he points to no other evidence in the record to compel the
finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with consent or
acquiescence of a public official in India. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
Singh fails to overcome the presumption that the agency considered all the
evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000).
Finally, we reject Singh’s due process contention regarding corroboration.
See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). We
also reject Singh’s related argument that the BIA erred in denying his motion to
remand. See Romero-Ruiz, 538 F.3d at 1062 (“The BIA abuses its discretion if its
decision is arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law.”) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-70356