NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 17 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YASH PAUL, No. 16-72596 Petitioner, Agency No. A206-186-030 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted November 15, 2021** San Francisco, California Before: PAEZ and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District Judge. Yash Paul, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review from a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial of his claims * 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 Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition. Paul alleges that he was arrested and beaten three times by the police in India. According to Paul, he was attacked because the police erroneously believed that he was involved in the violent Naxalite movement and because he belonged to a lower caste. The Immigration Judge found Paul to be not credible. The BIA relied upon three inconsistencies in affirming the adverse credibility determination, each of which is supported by substantial evidence. See Garland v. Ming Dai, 141 S. Ct. 1669, 1677 (2021) (“When it comes to questions of fact . . . a reviewing court must accept ‘administrative findings’ as ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B))). 1. The BIA cited an inconsistency between Paul’s testimony and his wife’s supporting affidavit in their descriptions of the medical care he received after the alleged beatings. Paul testified that he went to see a doctor after the first and third beatings, but not the second. His wife’s affidavit, however, indicates that Paul received medical treatment after his second beating; it does not mention any treatment after the first or third beating. Paul attempted to explain this apparent 2 inconsistency between his testimony and his wife’s affidavit by saying that she had made a “mistake or, you know, I don’t know about that.” Given Paul’s testimony that his wife accompanied him when he sought medical treatment after the third beating, a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to accept this explanation. Paul argues that, at least as to the third incident, the discrepancy is a mere omission on his wife’s part, not an inconsistency, which does not undermine his credibility. Treating this discrepancy as an omission rather than an inconsistency would not alter our conclusion. See Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[O]missions are probative of credibility to the extent that later disclosures, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals