Filed: Aug. 07, 2020
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HARMEET SINGH, No. 19-71754 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-666-179 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 6, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: CLIFTON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DONATO,*** District Judge. Harmeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, p
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 7 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HARMEET SINGH, No. 19-71754 Petitioner, Agency No. A215-666-179 v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted July 6, 2020** Seattle, Washington Before: CLIFTON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DONATO,*** District Judge. Harmeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, pe..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 7 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARMEET SINGH, No. 19-71754
Petitioner, Agency No. A215-666-179
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 6, 2020**
Seattle, Washington
Before: CLIFTON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and DONATO,*** District
Judge.
Harmeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the
*
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 James Donato, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT
relief. We deny the petition.
We review the BIA’s legal determination de novo and its factual findings for
substantial evidence. Singh v. Whitaker,
914 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2019).
Factual findings “are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
The BIA’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
evidence. Credibility findings must be upheld “so long as even one basis is
supported by substantial evidence.” Rizk v. Holder,
629 F.3d 1083, 1088-89 (9th
Cir. 2011). On several issues, Singh’s testimony before the IJ was inconsistent
with his prior statements. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). For example, Border
Patrol records show that when Singh was interviewed shortly after entering the
country in April 2018, he reported that he had no family in the United States. He
later testified that his sister has been living in Fresno, California, since 2014.
The BIA and IJ did not have to accept Singh’s explanation for this
inconsistency. See Cortez-Pineda v. Holder,
610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010).
Singh claims that Border Patrol agents asked him whether he had any American
citizen relatives and that he answered no because his sister and brother-in-law are
currently in asylum proceedings. However, the Border Patrol record of the
interview indicates that Singh was asked whether he had any family or friends
2 19-71754
residing in the United States, to which he answered no. The BIA and IJ considered
his explanation, and both found the Border Patrol’s record to be an accurate
account of Singh’s initial interview. Singh provides no reason to overturn that
finding. Because the adverse credibility determination was based on substantial
evidence, the asylum and withholding claims that depend on that non-credible
testimony were permissibly denied. See Shrestha v. Holder,
590 F.3d 1034, 1048
n.6 (9th Cir. 2010).
The BIA’s determination that Singh did not submit reasonably available
evidence to corroborate his claims is also supported by substantial evidence.
Singh’s petition does not challenge the BIA’s finding that his sister, who lives in
Fresno, was available to testify.
Singh has not demonstrated he is entitled to CAT relief since his claim was
based on statements the BIA determined not to be credible, and there is no
independent evidence in the record to show he is eligible.
Id. at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 19-71754