Joginder Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOGINDER SINGH, No. 09-74066
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-599-990
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 6, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Joginder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s
(IJ) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252, and we deny the petition.
We conclude that the IJ’s decision, which was adopted by the BIA, is
supported by substantial evidence. Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.
2011). The IJ denied Singh’s applications after finding Singh not credible based
on inconsistencies between his oral testimony and his written statement, and the
record does not compel a contrary conclusion. Id. In his written statement, Singh
claimed that his cousin and fellow political activist, Vikramjit, was found dead in
April of 2002, shortly after Singh complained to a local attorney of police brutality
against members of Singh’s party. When asked on cross-examination who was
killed, Singh testified that Harbhajan, Vikramjit’s father, was actually the party
activist who had been killed. Singh also insisted that Vikramjit was actually his
friend, not his cousin. Singh further testified that Harbhajan “was arrested with me
on 24th March 2001, [and] his dead body was hung close to his village.” When
asked if both Vikramjit and Harbhajan had been found dead, Singh testified as
follows: “No, it was Vikramjit Singh.”
Despite having ample opportunity to do so on cross-examination, Singh was
unable to explain his inconsistent testimony about the year of the alleged death, the
event preceding that death, the nature of his relationship with Vikramjit, or the
2
identity of who was killed. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1088. These inconsistencies
clearly go to the heart of Singh’s claim and are thus sufficient to support the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding. Id. at 1087–89. Because Singh’s documentary
evidence contained many of the same inconsistencies as his written statement, the
IJ’s decision to discredit this documentary evidence is also supported by
substantial evidence. See Lin v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2006). In
the absence of this discredited evidence, Singh cannot meet his burden of
establishing eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief. Rizk,
629 F.3d at 1091; Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003).
Accordingly, we deny Singh’s petition.
Petition DENIED.
3