Gurbakhsh Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
GURBAKHSH SINGH, No. 10-73244
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-162-909
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and HAYES, District Judge.***
Gurbakhsh Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) that affirmed the Immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable William Q. Hayes, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We “look to the IJ’s oral decision as a guide to what lay behind
the BIA’s conclusion.” Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008)
(quotations omitted). We review for substantial evidence, see id., and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding based upon
Singh’s inconsistent testimony regarding the identity of his family members sought
by police and the nature of the mistreatment Singh suffered while in police
custody. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007); Kaur v.
Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005). This finding goes to the heart of
Singh’s asylum claim. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741–42 (9th Cir.
2007).
The IJ did not err in deciding that Singh’s father’s death certificate, which
did not state a cause of death, failed adequately to corroborate Singh’s claim. Cf.
Don, 476 F.3d at 744 (“The IJ adequately articulated his decision, and did not
abuse his discretion by failing to interpret the evidence in the manner advocated by
Don.”).
2
Because the IJ made her credibility finding without consideration of Singh’s
original asylum application, the IJ and the BIA did not err in failing thoroughly to
address Singh’s claim of ineffective assistance in the preparation of Singh’s
original asylum application.
The BIA did not err in denying Singh’s motion to remand because Singh
failed to demonstrate why he could not have obtained and presented the newly-
submitted evidence to the IJ. See Goel, 490 F.3d at 739.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s finding that Singh failed
credibly to establish that he is eligible for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief
under the CAT. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3