Singh v. Garland ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 31 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PARDEEP SINGH, No. 22-237
Petitioner, Agency No. A216-274-464
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 29, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: BOGGS,*** M. SMITH, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Pardeep Singh, a citizen of India, challenges the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal from the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture. The parties are familiar
*
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).
***
The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
with the facts, so we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
“Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the IJ’s reasoning, we review both
decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018).
We review the agency’s adverse credibility determinations for substantial
evidence, Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013), and can reverse
such determinations only if “any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to
conclude to the contrary,” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination in this case. The agency accurately pointed to several
inconsistencies in the record that undermine Petitioner’s credibility. See Shrestha
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that inconsistencies,
considered in light of “the totality of the circumstances,” may support an adverse
credibility finding (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii))).
First, Petitioner made inconsistent representations about his injuries from
the first attack. He stated in his declaration that his back was bruised, and then
testified at his hearing that he suffered internal injuries and hurt his knee, while
his doctor’s note refers to scratches and a knee injury. Petitioner argues that his
doctor’s note merely omitted unimportant details about his injuries. However, it
is unlikely that the doctor would have omitted reference to a back injury or
internal injuries, as they are not minor or ancillary to the injuries described in the
letter. This explanation also does not account for the inconsistencies between
2 22-237
Petitioner’s own statements. Second, Petitioner testified that he received
bandages and ointment from his doctor after the incident, which his doctor’s note
fails to mention, despite describing other treatments Petitioner received.
Third, Petitioner gave inconsistent explanations for why he did not report
the first attack. Although he first stated that he did not take the incident seriously,
he later contended that the incident was “grave” but he did not report it because
he did not want to “create more problems.” He did not provide an adequate
explanation for this inconsistency, despite being given the opportunity to do so in
his hearing. Taken together, these inconsistencies provide substantial evidence
supporting the agency’s adverse credibility finding. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at
1043; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
PETITION DENIED.
3 22-237