NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 6 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUKHWINDER SINGH, No. 20-70522 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-194-142 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 9, 2021** Pasadena, California Before: COLLINS and LEE, Circuit Judges, and BAKER,*** Judge. Sukhwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s (IJ) * 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 M. Miller Baker, Judge for the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh claims that he was targeted by members of the majority political party in India, the Bharatiya Janata Party (“BJP”), which is Hindu, because he is a member of the minority Mann Party, which is Sikh. The IJ found Singh not credible based on inconsistencies in the record and Singh’s demeanor and the BIA affirmed that adverse credibility finding. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. We review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010), and must “uphold the agency’s determination unless compelled to conclude to the contrary,” Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Where the BIA issues its own decision but draws on the IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions. Flores-Lopez v. Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012). 1. We hold that substantial evidence in the record supports the three bases for the adverse credibility determination relied on by the IJ and the BIA. A. Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on the inconsistency between Singh’s testimony and his medical documentation about the treatment he received after the attacks by members of the BJP. While Singh testified he only received bandages, oral medication, and ointment, the letters from the hospital he submitted in support of his claim stated that 2 he also received a tetanus injection after one attack and an intravenous treatment of fluids after another attack. Inconsistencies, even minor ones, can provide a basis for an adverse credibility determination. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044. To support an adverse credibility determination, an inconsistency “should not be a mere trivial error such as a misspelling, and the petitioner’s explanation for the inconsistency, if any, should be considered in weighing credibility.” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044 (internal citations omitted). This analysis “must take into account the totality of circumstances, and should recognize that the normal limits of human understanding …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals