NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 7 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UDHAM SINGH, No. 13-70315 Petitioner, Agency No. A079-587-663 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 5, 2019** Before: FARRIS, D.W. NELSON, TROTT, Circuit Judges. Udham Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Singh concedes he is not eligible * 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). for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny in toto Singh’s petition for review. The agency denied withholding based on adverse credibility. First, the agency’s implausibility finding regarding the unlikely peregrinations of Singh’s errant passport allegedly from Mexico to India and then to him in the United States was well within its prerogative. Second, the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on a previous adverse credibility finding entered against Singh in an earlier proceeding, was equally valid. As the BIA explained, We find no clear error in the Immigration Judge’s adverse credibility finding. See Matter of R-S-H-, 23 I&N Dec. 629, 637 (BIA 2003) (explaining the highly deferential nature of clear error review). The Immigration Judge relied in significant part on the fact that the applicant, in the course of presenting his asylum claim in his prior proceeding, was found not credible by the Immigration Judge. This determination was upheld by the Board and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While an adverse credibility finding might not necessarily dictate a lack of credibility in subsequent proceedings, we find that its consideration in 2 13-70315 this case was appropriate. See section 241(b)(3)(C) of the Act (referring to section 208(b)(1)(B)(iii) of the Act, which states that credibility should be evaluated under the totality of circumstances and based on all relevant factors). Notably, the applicant’s prior claim was based on his ties or imputed ties to the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann political party, which is the basis of his current claim. The finding was also upheld on multiple levels of review, and the applicant still maintains that he had been truthful. Thus, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Singh failed to show it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals