Sukhchain Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 550 F. App'x 419 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 03 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKHCHAIN SINGH, No. 11-73475
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-590-766
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Sukhchain Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
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 abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand,
Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008), and we review de
novo claims of due process violations, Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th
Cir. 2000). We deny the petition for review.
Singh claims the Punjab police arrested and beat him on account of his
political opinion. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination based on inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony and documentary
evidence regarding several aspects of his claim, including his alleged medical care.
See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1045-48 (adverse credibility determination was
reasonable under the REAL ID Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard).
The agency reasonably rejected Singh’s explanations for the inconsistencies. See
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). We reject Singh’s
contention that the agency relied on speculation and conjecture. 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).
2 11-73475
Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is
more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to
remand to seek adjustment of status because he failed to submit sufficient
supporting documentation to show by clear and convincing evidence that his
marriage was bona fide. See Yepremyan v. Holder, 614 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir.
2010). We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA’s denial of the motion violated
his due process rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73475