Dicraj Singh v. Jefferson Sessions

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DICRAJ SINGH, AKA Dilraj Singh No. 16-70495 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-420-843 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 12, 2018** San Francisco, California Before: SILER***, PAEZ, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Dicraj Singh petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) * 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 Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Article III of the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). For the reasons stated below, we deny the petition. 1. The Board relied upon the IJ’s adverse credibility determination in upholding the denial of Singh’s applications for asylum and withholding of removal. We review that determination for substantial evidence, upholding the adverse credibility finding “unless the evidence compels a contrary result.” Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007). In this case, the IJ noted, and the Board incorporated, “specific examples” of Singh’s non-responsive behavior and suspect demeanor. Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Therefore the IJ’s finding that Singh’s demeanor undermined his credibility was supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s finding, and the Board’s incorporation, that Singh provided inconsistent testimony regarding the number of threats he received, and the details of the August 2011 and January 2012 attacks. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “when an inconsistency is at the heart of the [asylum] claim it doubtless is of great weight”). 2. The IJ referenced Singh’s nontestimonial evidence in the record and gave “specific, cogent reason[s]” for giving it less weight. Lin v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2006). The IJ could reasonably conclude that the value of the 2 letter from Simranjit Singh Mann of the SADM party was reduced by the fact that Singh’s specific party activities were not mentioned in the letter, and the value of the medical evidence was reduced by inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony about how he obtained the injuries. The IJ could also reasonably conclude that the value of the affidavits submitted by family members was reduced because the affiants could not be cross-examined. Based on these findings, the agency did not err in holding that Singh’s evidence was insufficient to meet his burden to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution. We therefore deny Singh’s petition with respect to his asylum ...

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