NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HARMEET SINGH, No. 19-71754 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-666-179 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 6, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: CLIFTON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DONATO,*** District Judge. Harmeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the * 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 James Donato, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT relief. We deny the petition. We review the BIA’s legal determination de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2019). Factual findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The BIA’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. Credibility findings must be upheld “so long as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence.” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2011). On several issues, Singh’s testimony before the IJ was inconsistent with his prior statements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). For example, Border Patrol records show that when Singh was interviewed shortly after entering the country in April 2018, he reported that he had no family in the United States. He later testified that his sister has been living in Fresno, California, since 2014. The BIA and IJ did not have to accept Singh’s explanation for this inconsistency. See Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). Singh claims that Border Patrol agents asked him whether he had any American citizen relatives and that he answered no because his sister and brother-in-law are currently in asylum proceedings. However, the Border Patrol record of the interview indicates that Singh was asked whether he had any family or friends 2 19-71754 residing in the United States, to which he answered no. The BIA and IJ considered his explanation, and both found the Border Patrol’s record to be an accurate account of Singh’s initial interview. Singh provides no reason to overturn that finding. Because the adverse credibility determination was based on substantial evidence, the asylum and withholding claims that depend on that non-credible testimony were permissibly denied. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 n.6 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA’s determination that Singh did not submit reasonably available evidence to corroborate his claims is also supported by substantial evidence. Singh’s petition does not challenge the BIA’s finding that his sister, ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals