NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JUN 2 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JASVIR SINGH MULTANI, No. 16-71208 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-549-256 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 17, 2022** San Francisco, California Before: CHRISTEN and BRESS, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,*** District Judge. Jasvir Singh Multani (“Singh”), a citizen of India, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming the order of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Singh’s claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief * 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 Barbara M. G. Lynn, Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation. 1 under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for substantial evidence and may grant relief only if the record compels a contrary conclusion. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We review both the BIA’s decision and the IJ’s decision where the BIA relied on the IJ’s reasoning in part, but added its own analysis. See Singh v. Holder, 753 F.3d 826, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). Before this Court Singh argues that “at no time did the Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals find that [he] provided any inconsistent testimony from his credibility worksheet or his sworn declaration attached to his asylum application or to his sworn court testimony,” but rather, the adverse credibility finding was “based on the alleged motivations of [his] persecutors, and the absence of any evidence to demonstrate a pattern [or] practice standard.” Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of relief. The BIA permissibly concluded that Singh’s testimony was not credible. “There is no bright-line rule under which some number of inconsistencies requires sustaining or rejecting an adverse credibility determination.” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc). Rather, “in assessing an adverse credibility finding under the [REAL ID] Act, we must look to the ‘totality of the 2 circumstances[] and all relevant factors.’” Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1185(b)(1)(B)(iii)) (second alteration in original). The BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because of (1) the lack of detail in Singh’s testimony, (2) the implausible nature of his claims, (3) the lack of sufficient documentation of country conditions supporting Singh’s claim that members of his party, the Mann Party, have been persecuted in India, and (4) a diminished weight afforded to the corroborating letters and affidavits provided by Singh. The BIA and IJ appropriately “refer[red] to specific instances in the record …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals