Sukhjinderpal Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 13 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKHJINDERPAL SINGH, AKA No. 10-71444
Surinder Ghotra, AKA Sarvjinderpal
Singh Multani, Agency No. A075-301-837
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: CALLAHAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and HELLERSTEIN, Senior
District Judge.***
*
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 Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Sukhjinderpal 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 asylum, withholding of removal, and United Nations Convention
Against Torture (CAT) claims. We dismiss the petition for review in part and deny
it in part.
To the extent that the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision and cited
to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), we review the
decision of the IJ as the BIA’s decision. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1039
(9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). To the extent that the BIA also provided its own
analysis, we review the BIA’s decision as well. Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d
1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010). We review the agency’s factual findings, including
adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence, and we uphold the
findings unless the record compels a contrary result. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th Cir. 2003).
The pre-REAL ID Act standards for adverse credibility determinations
govern Singh’s petition. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 n.2. (9th Cir.
2011). “As long as one of the identified grounds underlying a negative credibility
finding is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claims of
persecution, we are bound to accept the negative credibility finding.” Khadka v.
2
Holder, 618 F.3d 996, 1000 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250,
1259 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]hether we have rejected some of the IJ’s grounds for an
adverse credibility finding is irrelevant.”).
As a preliminary matter, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s
conclusion that Singh’s asylum application is time-barred. See 8 U.S.C. §
1158(a)(3) (providing that “[n]o court shall have jurisdiction to review any
determination [as to timeliness]”). While Congress has “restore[d] our jurisdiction
over constitutional claims or questions of law,” Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d
646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted), Singh
disputes the facts underlying the IJ’s timeliness ruling. See Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1087(explaining that “credibility determinations are findings of fact by the IJ”). We
therefore dismiss Singh’s petition for review of the denial of his asylum
application.
Turning to the merits, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination. Singh adopted several different identities in connection
with his applications, and the agency properly rejected his excuses for doing so.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003); see also 8 C.F.R. §
208.3(c)(2) (“The applicant’s signature establishes a presumption that the applicant
is aware of the contents of the application.”). Further, Singh provided inconsistent
3
accounts regarding his alleged association with Sikh political organizations and his
purported history of arrests and torture. These inconsistencies go to the heart of
Singh’s claim of persecution, and they deprive his testimony of the “requisite ring
of truth.” Rizk, 629 F.3d at 1088 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Kaur
v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[W]hen inconsistencies that
weaken a claim for asylum are accompanied by other indications of dishonesty . . .
an adverse credibility determination may be supported by substantial evidence.”).
The agency properly declined to rely on witness declarations that were
inconsistent with Singh’s testimony. In the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s
withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156. Similarly, the
agency properly rejected Singh’s CAT claim, because he fails to identify any
record evidence that would compel a finding that it is more likely than not that he
would be tortured if returned to India. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1048–49 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
4