FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 06 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAWAIL SINGH, No. 17-71244 Petitioner, Agency No. A095-401-375 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 4, 2019** San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and W. FLETCHER and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Rawail Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decisions (1) terminating asylum status; (2) denying applications for asylum, * 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). withholding of removal, relief under the Convention Against Torture, and adjustment of status; and (3) ordering him removed. We review the agency’s factual findings for substantial evidence, including adverse credibility determinations. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). We review questions of law de novo. Urooj v. Holder, 734 F.3d 1075, 1078 (9th Cir. 2013). Where, as here, the BIA adopts the decision of the IJ, we review the IJ’s decision as if it were that of the BIA. Id. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we deny the petition. To terminate Singh’s asylum status, the government had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there was “a showing of fraud in [Singh’s] application such that he . . . was not eligible for asylum at the time it was granted.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.24(a)(1) & (f). Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s determination that the government had met its burden. The government provided evidence that Boota Singh Basi and Kasmir Singh Malhi had prepared Singh’s asylum application, and that they had pled guilty to running a criminal business preparing fraudulent asylum applications. Basi testified extensively about the scheme and, when provided a copy of Singh’s application, identified its narrative as one of the business’s false stock stories. Basi also elaborated on fraudulent details in Singh’s application, explaining, for 2 example, that Singh’s alleged arrest date was a major Sikh holiday chosen for the date’s easy memorability. The IJ found that Basi’s testimony was truthful, unrebutted, and unimpeached. In contrast, Singh was unsure of the details of his own asylum narrative, admitted that he worked with Basi and Malhi, and offered no other evidence in support of his claims. Weighing the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses, the IJ found there was a showing of fraud in Singh’s application. Because a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to conclude otherwise, the agency’s finding of fraud is supported by substantial evidence. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see Fernandes v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2010). Because the same findings underlie the IJ’s order denying Singh relief from ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals