NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUKHPUL SINGH, No. 17-71000 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-458-807 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted December 3, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: LUCERO,** CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Sukhpul Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for withholding of removal, asylum, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition. I We review the BIA’s “legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence.” Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1059 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (citations omitted). “Because credibility determinations are findings of fact . . . , they ‘are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)). Here, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s adverse credibility determination for three reasons, each of which finds adequate support in the record. First, the BIA found no error in the IJ’s determination that Singh’s demeanor during his hearing indicated that his testimony was not truthful. “The need for deference is particularly strong in the context of demeanor assessments” because those conclusions “will often be based on non-verbal cues.” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2014). In affirming the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, the BIA relied on the IJ’s conclusion that Singh was testifying by reciting from memory the contents of his earlier declaration rather than his own personal experience. Specifically, the BIA adopted the IJ’s observation that Singh’s testimony was “unemotional with a flat affect,” and that he gave “quick answers” during direct examination but that his testimony “was 2 halting” during cross-examination. Such observations are sufficiently precise, and without evidence to the contrary, we will not set aside such findings “that are the special province of the factfinder.” See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263– 64 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam). Second, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Singh was not credible because of the lack of detail in his testimony. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2010). The crux of Singh’s applications was that his safety is jeopardized in India because of his, and his family’s, political affiliation. But, as the BIA noted, Singh failed to articulate with any specificity his political party’s platform, what its members do, or its structure. ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals