NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 16 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT INDERJEET SINGH, No. 19-73165 Petitioner, Agency No. A089-294-396 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted June 14, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: TASHIMA and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and RAYES,*** District Judge. Inderjeet Singh, a citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and * 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 Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. CAT protection. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014). Since “credibility determinations are findings of fact” by the immigration judge (“IJ”), “they ‘are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). An IJ “is authorized to base an adverse credibility determination on ‘the totality of the circumstances’ and ‘all relevant factors.’” Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). This includes inconsistencies or inaccuracies “without regard to whether” it “goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.” Lizhi Qiu v. Barr, 944 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). The IJ must cite “specific instances in the record that support a conclusion that the factor undermines credibility.” Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2020). Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision, we review the IJ’s decision “as a guide to what lay behind the BIA’s conclusion.” Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (simplified). 2 1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination here. For example, Singh testified that he was arrested at a political rally in 2006, but the IJ found that Singh “could not tell specific and coherent statements as to how his participation in the event transpired.” Singh initially said he could not recall anything about how he got to the rally. Only after extended prodding by the IJ did Singh provide any details: that he rented a Jeep, that he went with seven or eight people, and that it took two and a half hours to get there. Even then, many details were still missing: Singh could not say if any other members of his political party participated in the rally, if his group leader was arrested, or the identities of anyone in the Jeep with him. Singh was …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals