Mandeep Singh v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 382 F. App'x 552 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             JUN 03 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MANDEEP SINGH,                                   No. 08-72587
    Petitioner,                        Agency No. A099-338-318
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Argued and Submitted April 13, 2010
    San Francisco, California
    Before: SCHROEDER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and MOODY, Judge.**
    Mandeep Singh (Singh) petitions for review of a Board of Immigration
    Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the denial of his applications for asylum,
    withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the United Nations
    Convention Against Torture (CAT).
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District Judge
    for the District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.
    Singh contends the immigration judge (IJ) erred by basing its adverse
    credibility determination on (1) minor inconsistencies that do not go to the heart of
    his claim and (2) his failure to provide corroborating documents.
    The parties agree that we must apply the REAL ID Act to Singh’s
    application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under CAT,
    because he filed the application after the effective date of the act. Under the act,
    “[t]o support an adverse credibility determination, inconsistencies must be
    considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors.”
    Shrestha v. Holder, 
    590 F.3d 1034
    , 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations and internal
    quotation marks omitted). One relevant factor is “the consistency between the
    applicant’s . . . written and oral statements (whenever made and whether or not
    under oath, and considering the circumstances under which the statements were
    made).” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Further, “[i]nconsistencies no longer need
    to ‘go to the heart’ of the petitioner’s claim to form the basis of an adverse
    credibility determination.” 
    Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1043
    (citation omitted).
    Based on this standard, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is
    supported by substantial evidence. Singh testified that the police slapped and beat
    him during his first arrest, but his description of the arrest in his application for
    asylum failed to include this allegation (though describing his father’s arrest and
    2
    beating). After being confronted, the IJ allowed him additional time to present
    corroborating evidence. He failed to provide evidence verifying his father’s arrest,
    or his own medical treatment, providing only an affidavit from his mother that the
    treating physician refused to provide documentation or get involved. Additionally,
    Singh provided conflicting testimony whether he was a member of the All India
    Sikh Students Federation.
    Consequently, the BIA’s decision that the IJ properly denied Singh’s
    applications for asylum and withholding of removal must be affirmed. See Farah
    v. Ashcroft, 
    348 F.3d 1153
    , 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A failure to satisfy the lower
    standard of proof required to establish eligibility for asylum therefore necessarily
    results in a failure to demonstrate eligibility for withholding of deportation.”
    (citation omitted)) .
    “To receive CAT protection, a petitioner must prove that it is more likely
    than not that he or she would be tortured if removed.” 
    Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048
    (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “An adverse credibility
    determination is not necessarily a death knell to CAT protection. . . . But when the
    petitioner’s testimony is found not credible, to reverse the BIA’s decision denying
    CAT protection, we would have to find that the reports alone compelled the
    conclusion that the petitioner is more likely than not to be tortured.” 
    Id. at 3
    1048–49 (citations, alterations, and internal quotation marks omitted). Neither the
    country report or any other evidence in the record compels the conclusion that
    Singh is more likely than not to be tortured if removed. See 
    Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048
    –49. Therefore, the BIA’s denial of protection under CAT is supported by
    substantial evidence.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-72587

Citation Numbers: 382 F. App'x 552

Judges: Schroeder, Smith, Moody

Filed Date: 6/3/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024