Gurjit Sidhu v. William Barr

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 11 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURJIT SINGH SIDHU, No. 15-70457
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-565-541
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 7, 2019**
Seattle, Washington
Before: BEA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and MÁRQUEZ,*** District Judge.
*
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 Rosemary Márquez, United States District Judge for
the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
Gurjit Singh Sidhu (“Sidhu”), a native and citizen of India, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). Sidhu claims to fear persecution from police and the Shiromani Akali
Dal Badal party in India for his participation in the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar
party and his demands for a separate Sikh nation. We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. “We review the BIA’s adverse credibility finding for substantial
evidence.” Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Singh v.
Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2004)). We deny Sidhu’s petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding. In a
hearing before the immigration judge, Sidhu testified that, after being arrested in
January 2007, the police beat him with wooden batons and tortured him using “big
rollers” on his legs. However, Sidhu did not mention in his asylum application that
he was beaten during the 2007 detention. Although he later submitted a correction
sheet stating that he was beaten and punched during said detention, the correction
sheet does not mention torture with the roller. During the same hearing before the
immigration judge, Sidhu testified that he was deprived of food, beaten up, and
punched following a January 2008 arrest, but he did not mention anything about
2
physical mistreatment during the 2008 detention in either his application or
correction sheet. When the immigration judge confronted Sidhu about the
discrepancy involving the 2008 detention, Sidhu downplayed his earlier testimony,
stating that it was just “one or two slaps,” and that it was “just like a normal thing
when they arrest a person . . . .” Further, Sidhu pointed in his application and
testimony to threatening letters he said he received, but he could not provide clear
answers to the immigration judge concerning when he received the letters and how
many letters there had been. At one point he testified that he had received “five,
six, seven” letters, but at another point he testified that he had received only one
letter. These omissions and inconsistencies are not trivial.
The immigration judge noted these inconsistencies during the hearing and
questioned Sidhu about them. The immigration judge then found Sidhu’s
testimony and explanations for these omissions were not credible. See Kaur v.
Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005). The BIA reviewed this finding for
clear error and affirmed. The immigration judge also found Sidhu did not establish
that he timely filed his application for asylum because Sidhu did not provide
adequate corroboration of his claimed arrival date and, as discussed above, his
testimony was not credible.
3
Substantial evidence supports the immigration judge’s adverse credibility
determination. The BIA thus properly denied Sidhu’s claims for asylum,
withholding of removal, and CAT protection, which were based on Sidhu’s not
credible testimony. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
4