Sukhjeet Singh v. Jefferson Sessions

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 21 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUKHJEET SINGH, No. 14-73577 Petitioner, Agency No. A205-332-174 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 13, 2017** San Francisco, California Before: BERZON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and SESSIONS, District Judge.*** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 William K. Sessions III, United States District Judge for the District of Vermont, sitting by designation. Sukhjeet Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Singh also appeals the BIA’s denial of his motion to remand the proceedings to the Immigration Judge (“IJ”). 1. The IJ found Sukhjeet Singh not credible, and the BIA upheld that determination. The BIA’s credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. The BIA relied primarily on two inconsistencies or omissions that, in light of “the totality of the circumstances,” bear on Singh’s credibility. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1084 (9th Cir. 2011). First, neither the affidavit from Singh’s mother, Gian Kaur, nor the affidavit from the village official, Avtar Singh, acknowledged the death of Singh’s father. That omission is significant, as Singh’s claim to political persecution relied principally on his father and brother’s membership in the Akali Dal Mann party, and Singh alleges his father died as a result of injuries caused by the police. Second, the doctor’s letter describing Singh’s condition after he was arrested and held by police omits any mention of the most severe injuries that Singh claims to have suffered. Singh alleged that he was “severely beaten” and “tortured” by four policemen who pulled his legs apart and rolled a roller on his thighs to the 2 point that he “could not bear the pain and . . . became unconscious.” He further alleged that, when he was admitted to the hospital, he had blood in his urine and was unable “to carry the weight” of his body. But the doctor’s letter makes no mention of physical signs of beating, difficulty walking, or blood in urine, and states only that he “was suffering from Fever and bomiting [sic] and dihydretion [sic].” When asked about these inconsistencies, Singh failed to provide any adequate explanation. These inconsistencies and omissions were not “minor,” de Leon-Barrios v. INS, 116 F.3d 391, 393 (9th Cir. 1997), or “trivial,” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1043–44 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA was entitled to rely on these inconsistencies to uphold the adverse credibility determination, and therefore to conclude that Singh is not eligible for asylum or withholding ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals