Harpreet Singh-Dhaliwal v. Matthew Whitaker ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 13 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARPREET SINGH-DHALIWAL, AKA No. 16-73178
Harpreet Singh-Dharwal,
Agency No. A206-086-041
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 4, 2018
Seattle, Washington
Before: W. FLETCHER, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Harpreet Singh-Dhaliwal, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review because
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Page 2 of 3
substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination and
the record does not compel the conclusion that Singh-Dhaliwal is entitled to relief.
See Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (adverse credibility
determinations reviewed for substantial evidence).
1. Although he testified about it at length at his hearing, Singh-Dhaliwal
failed to mention in his written asylum application that his father was murdered by
Congress Party members on account of his support for the Shiromani Akali Dal
(Amritsar) Party, led by Simranjit Singh Mann. Omissions regarding third parties
may frequently be insufficient to support adverse credibility determinations, see,
e.g., Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 973–74 (9th Cir. 2014), but in this case it was
not unreasonable for the IJ and BIA to rely on the omission regarding Singh-
Dhaliwal’s father in finding that Singh-Dhaliwal lacked credibility. To begin with,
the asylum application specifically asks if “you, your family, or close friends or
colleagues” have experienced harm, mistreatment, or threats in the past. More
importantly, the fact that Singh-Dhaliwal’s father suffered the same fate that
Singh-Dhaliwal fears for himself is more than a trivial or collateral detail. See
Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185–86 (9th Cir. 2016). Although the
omission concerns a third party, it nonetheless represents a “dramatic, pivotal
event” that Singh-Dhaliwal experienced and that is central to his claim of feared
persecution. Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003).
Page 3 of 3
Moreover, Singh-Dhaliwal’s account indicates that his father’s murder was closely
linked to his own persecution, as he testified that his own attackers threatened to do
to him what they had done to his father.
Singh-Dhaliwal’s explanation for omitting this information from his asylum
application was that he was afraid to include it. It was not unreasonable for the IJ
to discredit that explanation given that Singh-Dhaliwal was not afraid to include
information about the beatings he himself suffered, or to testify about his father’s
murder at his hearing. See Silva-Pereira, 827 F.3d at 1186 (rejecting a similar
explanation).
Finally, because there was a basis for doubting Singh-Dhaliwal’s credibility,
the IJ and BIA could properly consider that the letters from Singh-Dhaliwal’s
mother and village elders did not corroborate his father’s murder. See Wang, 861
F.3d at 1008–09; Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004).
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Singh-
Dhaliwal’s corroborating evidence was insufficient to independently satisfy his
burden of proof. The letters and affidavits that Singh-Dhaliwal submitted,
combined with the evidence regarding country conditions, do not on their own
compel relief in this case.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.