Harmanmeet Singh v. Merrick Garland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 7 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARMANMEET SINGH, No. 17-70908
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-935-355
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 5, 2021**
Portland, Oregon
Before: W. FLETCHER, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Harmanmeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review from
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial of his
claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). Singh alleged that he was persecuted on account of his
*
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).
political activities in India. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Singh’s testimony
not credible and accorded it no weight, and the BIA affirmed. This credibility
finding is supported by substantial evidence.
First, the BIA and the IJ (collectively, “the agency”) cited a discrepancy
regarding how and where Singh recovered consciousness after an alleged
abduction and beating in June 2012. In his declaration, Singh stated that he
regained consciousness late at night in a car with his abductors, and that after a few
minutes they pushed him out of the car and onto the street. In his testimony,
however, Singh said that he regained consciousness around noon, already on the
street. The IJ provided Singh an opportunity to explain this discrepancy, which he
failed to do. Because this discrepancy “is at the heart of the claim,” the agency
could assign it “great weight” in assessing Singh’s credibility. Shrestha v. Holder,
590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010).
Second, the agency cited an inconsistency about whether the police asked
Singh for a bribe in exchange for investigating his complaint about the alleged
kidnapping and beating. His declaration failed to mention any request for a bribe,
but in his testimony, Singh said the police demanded 150,000 rupees to investigate
his complaint. He failed to explain this discrepancy when the IJ provided an
opportunity to do so. The agency properly considered the omission of the alleged
request for a bribe as part of the credibility determination. See Silva-Pereira v.
2
Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016).
Third, the agency cited Singh’s evasive and vague testimony in response to
the IJ’s questioning. As is required, the IJ “‘identif[ied] particular instances in the
record’ where the petitioner was unresponsive.” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1045(emphasis deleted) (quoting Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir.
2002)). The IJ specifically cited two exchanges regarding Singh’s efforts to report
attacks against him and his knowledge of persecution against individuals who
returned to India from the United States. Because Singh failed to “g[i]ve
responsive and straightforward answers” to the IJ’s questions, Iman v. Barr, 972
F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2020), it was appropriate for the agency to consider these
responses as part of its credibility determination as well.
The remaining record evidence is insufficient to support Singh’s claims, so
we deny the petition for review. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009
(9th Cir. 2017). Although a “CAT applicant may satisfy his burden with evidence
of country conditions alone,” Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705
(9th Cir. 2010), the record evidence here does not compel the conclusion that
Singh would be tortured in India.
PETITION DENIED.
3