Gulinder Singh v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GULINDER SINGH, No. 18-72753
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-586-641
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 10, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: GOULD, TALLMAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Dissent by Judge GOULD
Gulinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the denial of his applications 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 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).
(CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for
review. 1
1. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s denial of asylum and
withholding of removal based on the Immigration Judge (IJ)’s adverse credibility
finding and adverse demeanor finding because it was based on internal
inconsistencies in the petitioner’s testimony, lack of detail in his testimony, and non-
responsiveness in his demeanor.2 See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th
Cir. 2010); see also Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc)
(“[O]ur review will always require assessing the totality of the circumstances.”);
Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 839 (9th Cir. 2021) (discussing the “special
deference” given to non-verbal demeanor findings). The Board correctly concluded
that these grounds were not clearly erroneous.
2. Substantial evidence also supports the Board’s determination that
Singh’s corroborating evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate the adverse
1
We deny the government’s motion for administrative closure, Dkt. 36, without
prejudice to the parties’ ability to seek appropriate relief before the agency.
Consequently, we direct the Clerk to stay issuance of the mandate for 30 days in
order to allow time for the parties to accomplish administrative reopening.
2
We consider only the grounds relied upon by the Board, Singh v. Holder, 649 F.3d
1161, 1164 n.6 (9th Cir. 2011), “review[ing] the IJ’s decision to the extent
incorporated,” Medina-Lara v. Holder, 771 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014). Factual
findings, including credibility determinations, are reviewed for substantial evidence.
See Ahmed v. Keisler, 504 F.3d 1183, 1191 (9th Cir. 2007).
2
credibility finding. See Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017)
(finding, in the absence of credible testimony, “the remaining evidence in the record
is insufficient to carry [the petitioner’s] burden of establishing eligibility for relief”).
3. Because Singh could not establish his eligibility for asylum, his
withholding of removal claim was properly denied on the same bases. See Huang
v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014). Nor did Singh carry his burden of
establishing his entitlement to relief under the CAT. The evidence in the record in
no way compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Singh would suffer
harm rising to the level of torture “by government officials or private actors with
government acquiescence” if returned to India. Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1160
(9th Cir. 2019); see also Singh v. Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 435, 443 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3
FILED
NOV 15 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
GOULD, Circuit Judge, dissenting: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
I respectfully dissent and would grant the motion for administrative closure.
4