NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 14 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAGHWINDER SINGH, No. 15-71306 Petitioner, Agency No. A096-138-103 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2019** San Francisco, California Before: GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and PEARSON,*** District Judge. Petitioner Raghwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order, denying him asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. * 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 Benita Y. Pearson, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation. Singh also appeals the BIA’s frivolousness determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6). Where, as here, the BIA reviews the IJ’s decision for clear error and provides a written decision beyond mere boilerplate, we “look to the IJ’s oral decision as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion” and review “the reasons explicitly identified by the BIA, and then examine the reasoning articulated in the IJ’s oral decision in support of those reasons.” Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Kozulin v. INS, 218 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2000)). We review questions of law de novo. Flores-De Solis v. INS, 796 F.2d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 1986). We review “the BIA’s findings of fact, including credibility findings, for substantial evidence and must uphold the BIA’s finding unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 920 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Singh filed his application in 2002, our pre-REAL-ID Act case law applies. See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006). Under that law, “[m]inor inconsistencies that reveal nothing about an asylum applicant’s fear for her safety are not an adequate basis for an adverse credibility finding.” Kaur v. Ashcroft, 379 F.3d 876, 884 (9th Cir. 2004) (alterations omitted). However, in Singh’s case, the BIA rested its adverse credibility determination on two admitted 2 lies: in his application and initial testimony, Singh intentionally omitted his first trip to the United States and falsely attested that he used the alias Roshan Kumar. An admitted lie about those matters strikes at the heart of an asylum claim because it suggests that the petitioner is willing to lie in order to improve his chances of receiving asylum in the United States. Singh explained that he omitted his prior visit because he feared he would have to return to India if he mentioned his previous trip. As the BIA noted, Singh’s prior entry into the United States also speaks to whether Singh feared persecution in India. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals