SINGH v. GARLAND (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-07No. No. 17-70908

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review is denied. The Immigration Judge's and Board of Immigration Appeals' credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, and the remaining record evidence is insufficient to support Singh's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Harmanmeet Singh, an Indian citizen, sought asylum and related relief based on alleged persecution for political activities in India. An Immigration Judge found Singh's testimony not credible, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that determination. The court reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the credibility finding and examined whether the remaining record evidence could sustain Singh's claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture relief.

The agency identified three categories of credibility problems. Singh gave contradictory accounts of when and where he regained consciousness after an alleged 2012 abduction and beating—stating in his written declaration that he woke in a car but testifying he woke on the street. He also omitted from his declaration any mention of police demanding a bribe to investigate his complaint, only raising this detail during testimony. Additionally, Singh's responses to questioning were evasive and vague, particularly regarding his efforts to report attacks and his knowledge of persecution affecting returnees to India.

Beyond the credibility issues, the remaining evidence in the record did not establish that Singh would face torture if returned to India. The court concluded that even considering country conditions evidence alone, the record did not compel a finding that Singh would be tortured there.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether material inconsistencies in an applicant's account of an alleged abduction and beating support a credibility finding
Whether omission of a significant detail from a written declaration, later added in testimony, affects credibility determination
Whether evasive and vague testimony properly factors into immigration credibility assessments
Whether country conditions evidence alone can establish eligibility for Convention Against Torture relief

Procedural posture

Singh petitioned for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision upholding an Immigration Judge's denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture claims.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Harmanmeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding the denial of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Singh alleged that he was persecuted on account of his political activities in India. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) found Singhs testimony not credible and accorded it no weight, and the BIA affirmed. This credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence.

First, the BIA and the IJ (collectively, “the agency”) cited a discrepancy regarding how and where Singh recovered consciousness after an alleged abduction and beating in June 2012. In his declaration, Singh stated that he regained consciousness late at night in a car with his abductors, and that after a few minutes they pushed him out of the car and onto the street. In his testimony, however, Singh said that he regained consciousness around noon, already on the street. The IJ provided Singh an opportunity to explain this discrepancy, which he failed to do. Because this discrepancy “is at the heart of the claim,” the agency could assign it “great weight” in assessing Singhs credibility. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010).

Second, the agency cited an inconsistency about whether the police asked Singh for a bribe in exchange for investigating his complaint about the alleged kidnapping and beating. His declaration failed to mention any request for a bribe, but in his testimony, Singh said the police demanded 150,000 rupees to investigate his complaint. He failed to explain this discrepancy when the IJ provided an opportunity to do so. The agency properly considered the omission of the alleged request for a bribe as part of the credibility determination. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016).

Third, the agency cited Singhs evasive and vague testimony in response to the IJs questioning. As is required, the IJ “ ‘identif[ied] particular instances in the record’ where the petitioner was unresponsive.” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1045 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Singh v. Ashcroft, 301 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir. 2002)). The IJ specifically cited two exchanges regarding Singhs efforts to report attacks against him and his knowledge of persecution against individuals who returned to India from the United States. Because Singh failed to “g[i]ve responsive and straightforward answers” to the IJs questions, Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir. 2020), it was appropriate for the agency to consider these responses as part of its credibility determination as well.

The remaining record evidence is insufficient to support Singhs claims, so we deny the petition for review. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017). Although a “CAT applicant may satisfy his burden with evidence of country conditions alone,” Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 2010), the record evidence here does not compel the conclusion that Singh would be tortured in India.

PETITION DENIED.