NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 8 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GURBHAG SINGH SANDHU, No. 15-72932 Petitioner, Agency No. A200-943-694 v. MEMORANDUM* ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 1, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: IKUTA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and EATON,*** Judge. Gurbhag Singh Sandhu, a native and citizen of India, applied for 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). *** Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. (CAT). After making an adverse credibility determination, the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied all relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed Sandhu’s subsequent appeal. Sandhu now petitions for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition. 1. Sandhu challenges the agency’s adverse credibility finding. We review credibility determinations for substantial evidence. See Bassene v. Holder, 737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013). In reviewing the BIA’s decision, “we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. First, during a sworn interview with Border Patrol, Sandhu claimed fear of an individual named Jaspal Singh but disavowed this fear during his Credible Fear Interview. Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding that lying under oath to immigration officials supported an adverse credibility finding). Sandhu had a reasonable opportunity to explain his misrepresentation during cross examination when he testified that he feared Border Patrol officials because of his past interaction with Indian police. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding the noncitizen had a reasonable opportunity to explain where she “tried to explain the numerous inconsistencies” but “[t]he IJ ultimately 2 found these explanations insufficient”). Second, Sandhu did not disclose being attacked by the police while engaging in political protest in his Credible Fear Interview or asylum application.1 Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding based on these facts because they added “great weight to his claim of political persecution.” See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Sandhu argues that an adverse credibility finding cannot be based on these omissions because it is unclear whether he was physically beaten by the police. However, the agency’s decision does not turn on whether Sandhu suffered physical blows, but on his failure to mention being a part of a group attacked by the police, an event serious enough to motivate him to flee his village. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals