NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AVTAR SINGH DHINDSA, No. 17-70153 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-703-629 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 12, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER and BADE, Circuit Judges, and JACK,*** District Judge. Avtar Singh Dhindsa, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an * 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 Janis Graham Jack, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, sitting by designation. immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying 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 review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between Dhindsa’s asylum application, supplementary statement, and testimony concerning his date of entry into the United States; his departure from India; and his journey to the United States. See id. at 1048 (holding that in the totality of circumstances, substantial evidence supported the agency’s adverse credibility determination). Dhindsa’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). We reject as unsupported by the record Dhindsa’s contentions that the agency failed to consider his explanations or otherwise erred in its credibility analysis. The agency did not err in assigning limited weight to the corroborating affidavits Dhindsa submitted. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding that agency reasonably assigned corroborating documents limited weight, where the authors were not available for cross examination and the authenticity of the documents relied on the applicant’s discredited testimony). 2 17-70153 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that the affidavits were insufficient to independently establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See id. (holding that documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently support claim, where the “documents do not reveal any independent knowledge of [the applicant’s] alleged abuse”). To the extent Dhindsa argues that the country conditions evidence independently establishes a well-founded fear of persecution, we lack jurisdiction to consider the argument. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not presented to the agency). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Dhindsa’s asylum and withholding of removal …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals