NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 1 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUKHMINDER SINGH, No. 19-71141 Petitioner, Agency No. A099-474-242 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 30, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN, N.R. SMITH, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Sukhminder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the denial by an immigration judge (“IJ”) of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Singh * 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). sought immigration relief based on his alleged persecution in India for his affiliation with the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar (“SADA” or “Mann”) Party. In this petition, Singh contests the adverse credibility determination that underlies the rejection of his claims for relief. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. The IJ found Singh’s testimony not credible based on a series of inconsistencies between his oral testimony, his written submissions, and his credible fear interview. The IJ cited inconsistencies as to Singh’s membership in the SADA Party; his degree of involvement with the SADA Party, including the nature and regularity of his party activities; his knowledge of the principles and goals of the SADA Party; the timing and number of threats he received; and the way he identified his attackers as members of the rival Congress Party. When the IJ confronted Singh about these inconsistencies, the IJ found Singh’s explanations unsatisfactory and the inconsistencies “unresolved.” The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision, explaining that the record substantiated the IJ’s findings of material inconsistencies in Singh’s narrative. The BIA added that the IJ “was not required to accept [Singh’s] bare assertions that he simply made mistakes, or that he simply ‘didn’t know what to say, what to do’ at his interview, as sufficient to reconcile the discrepancies in the record and establish his credibility.” The BIA noted that the cited inconsistencies as to the timing and 2 number of threats Singh received were “arguably minor,” but the adverse credibility determination “was nevertheless supported by other permissible considerations that . . . are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous.” Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). For example, although Singh testified at his merits hearing that he was a member of the SADA Party, he previously stated he was “a low-level worker of the party” and not a member. Singh also testified inconsistently about the nature and intensity of his involvement with the SADA Party. In his credible fear ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals