Amandeep Singh v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 5 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMANDEEP SINGH, No. 15-71343 Petitioner, Agency No. A088-716-329 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 15, 2017 San Francisco, California Before: BERZON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS,** District Judge. Amandeep Singh (“Singh”) petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. 1. Singh claims that he is a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal, a political party that promotes the establishment of a separate state for Sikhs in India. Singh submits that he participated in rallies, demonstrations, and other politically motivated activities, and as a result encountered three persecutory incidents: once being beaten and threatened with death by civilians belonging to the Badal Party, and twice being arrested, detained, and tortured by Punjabi Police. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Singh not credible, and the BIA upheld that determination. The agency’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. 2. This Court reviews “denials of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief for substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2013)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, we “review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence.” Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)) (internal quotation marks omitted). This means that the agency’s “findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). “[O]nly the most extraordinary 2 15-71343 circumstances will justify overturning an adverse credibility determination.” Bingxu Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010)). 3. Under the REAL ID Act, “there is no presumption that an applicant for relief is credible, and the IJ is authorized to base an adverse credibility determination on ‘the totality of the circumstances’ and ‘all relevant factors.’” Ling Huang, 744 F.3d at 1152–53 (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). Such factors include the alien’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Demeanor findings “should specifically point out the noncredible aspects of the petitioner’s demeanor.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010). The IJ may also consider inconsistencies between the petitioner’s statements and other evidence in the record. ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals