From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Singh v. Garland

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 20, 2022
No. 21-70752 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022)

Opinion

21-70752

10-20-2022

GURCHETAN SINGH, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted October 17, 2022 [**] San Francisco, California

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A206-468-977

Before: McKEOWN, CALLAHAN, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Gurchetan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (the "BIA") denial of his asylum application and requests for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Before us, Singh raises three issues. First, he challenges the adverse credibility finding, asserting that (A) there was no material omission, because the interactions between him and the police that he did not discuss in his declaration or direct-examination testimony were "mundane and random" and "trifling" in comparison to his reported harm, and the immigration judge ("IJ") and BIA failed to properly consider and address his explanations for the alleged omission, and (B) he was not given an opportunity to provide more detail about his uncle and father. Second, he challenges the BIA's determination that he failed to submit sufficient corroborating evidence to rehabilitate his testimony. Finally, he challenges the BIA's conclusion that he had not established eligibility for relief under the CAT. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b), and we deny the petition.

1. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding as a basis to deny Singh asylum and withholding of removal. See Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020). We must uphold an adverse credibility determination "unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam).

Singh's challenge to the adverse credibility finding is not persuasive. Singh seeks asylum based on persecution on account of his political and religious belief from the police and members of the Congress party. Yet, he omitted from his declaration and did not testify during direct examination that he had numerous encounters with the police in both Punjab and Haryana. It was reasonable for the IJ and the BIA to consider that the omissions of numerous encounters with police from two separate states were "not 'details,' but new allegations that tell a 'much different-and more compelling-story of persecution than [the] initial application.'" Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011)). Notably, Singh initially alleged only that he was persecuted by the police in Punjab and his father and uncle were killed by the police because of their political opinion. Thus, a claim that, following his arrest, the police from Punjab and Haryana contacted him at his home, Gurdwara, or at rallies so "many times" over five months that he could not estimate, is significant. The IJ and the BIA properly considered and rejected Singh's explanations for the omissions. See Li v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that the IJ and BIA are not "compelled to accept [a petitioner's] explanation").

To the extent that Singh raises a new explanation that there may have been translation issues, this argument was not exhausted before the BIA, and thus cannot be raised on appeal. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

Singh also failed to provide detailed testimony with regard to the persecution suffered by his uncle and father. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that a lack of detail can be a factor in an adverse credibility finding); see also Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1153 (9th Cir. 1999). Despite the fact that both his uncle and father were allegedly killed by the police on account of their political opinion, Singh could only provide vague testimony when he was asked open-ended questions about their persecution. See Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1155 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding that petitioner's testimony was "not so thorough and comprehensive as to compel a contrary conclusion").

2. The IJ and the BIA concluded that Singh failed to submit sufficient corroborating evidence to support his testimony. Singh failed to properly challenge this issue in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Issues raised in a brief that are not supported by argument are deemed abandoned."). Although Singh suggests in his reply brief that he properly challenged this issue, he again failed to outline any error committed by the IJ or the BIA in assessing his corroborating evidence. Even if we were to consider the argument, Singh has failed to show that the BIA and the IJ erred in giving the documents limited weight or finding that the evidence did not independently satisfy his burden of proof. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2007).

3. Substantial evidence supports the BIA's conclusion that Singh is not eligible for relief under the CAT. To qualify for relief, he must establish that "it is more likely than not that he . . . would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of removal." Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2)). He must also show that torture will be by public officials or instigated with their consent or acquiescence. Id. Singh failed to provide sufficient independent evidence other than his incredible testimony that he faced a particularized risk of torture in India. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that when "claims under the CAT are based on the same statements that the BIA determined to be not credible in the asylum context," there is no error in denying the CAT claim (citation and alterations omitted)). Accordingly, Singh's CAT claim fails.

The petition for review is DENIED.

[*] 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).


Summaries of

Singh v. Garland

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 20, 2022
No. 21-70752 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022)
Case details for

Singh v. Garland

Case Details

Full title:GURCHETAN SINGH, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 20, 2022

Citations

No. 21-70752 (9th Cir. Oct. 20, 2022)