Lakhvir Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 15 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LAKHVIR SINGH, No. 13-71592
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-583-646
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted March 15, 2016
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Lakhvir Singh (Singh), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal of an
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, relief under the
Convention Against Torture (CAT), and voluntary departure.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The adverse credibility determination made by the IJ was supported by
substantial evidence. See Singh v. Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 974-95 (9th Cir. 2015)
(articulating standard). Although Singh testified that Dr. Mann treated him and his
brother, he failed to provide evidence that Dr. Mann even existed. Singh had
sufficient warning that the existence of Dr. Mann was a critical issue, given the
investigative report concluding that “no Mann Clinic exist[s] at the given address.”
On remand to the IJ, the author of the investigative report testified by
telephone. Yet, Singh failed to produce any document signed by Dr. Mann. His
only proffered evidence was a photograph that did not even show the face of the
person represented by Singh’s father to be Dr. Mann. The question of Dr. Mann’s
existence went to the heart of Singh’s claim and supported the adverse credibility
determination. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004).
Singh waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his claims for
withholding of removal and CAT relief “by failing to argue [them] in his brief.”
Lopez-Vasquez v. Holder, 706 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).
“By virtue of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)(2004) and 1229c(f), we lack
jurisdiction to review denials of voluntary departure, including statutory eligibility
for voluntary departure.” Tovar-Landin v. Ashcroft, 361 F.3d 1164, 1166 (9th Cir.
2004) (citation and footnote references omitted).
Page 2 of 3
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Page 3 of 3