NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAJ KUMAR SINGH, No. 15-70442 Petitioner, Agency No. A096-174-746 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 8, 2017** San Francisco, California Before: M. SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and HUMETEWA,*** District Judge. Raj Kumar Singh, a citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of the Immigration * 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 Diane J. Humetewa, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation. Judge’s (IJ) decision (1) denying his request for a continuance of his removal hearing and (2) denying his application for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s final order of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we affirm. 1. The BIA held that the IJ did not abuse her discretion or violate Singh’s due process rights in denying Singh’s request for a continuance to provide additional testimony in remanded proceedings. We agree. The record is clear that Singh, through counsel, affirmatively declined to testify, submitted the matter for a decision on the record, and represented that any further testimony would, in any event, be futile, due to his inability to authenticate the documentary evidence submitted with his motion to reopen. The IJ did not prevent Singh from “reasonably presenting [his] case” or “prevent the introduction of significant testimony.” Cruz Rendon v. Holder, 603 F.3d 1104, 1109 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Cinapian v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1074 (9th Cir. 2009)). The IJ acted within her discretion in denying Singh’s request for a continuance. See id. at 1110. 2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that Singh failed to establish that he would more likely than not be tortured if removed to India. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2). Neither the evidence Singh submitted with his motion to reopen nor the evidence he submitted with his application establishes a clear probability of future torture. 2 First, the documentary evidence Singh submitted with his motion to reopen in 2009 consists solely of unauthenticated hearsay, to which the IJ properly accorded less probative value. See Gu v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 1014, 1021–22 (9th Cir. 2006). Second, while Singh claims that his father died as a result of police torture in 2007, his father’s death certificate did not indicate a cause of death, and the affidavits submitted by Singh’s brother, mother, and village “sarpanch” stated only generally that his father had been beaten and tortured. No evidence described what mistreatment his father had endured or what injuries he suffered, and no ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals