MEMORANDUM **
Harjinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from a decision by an Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here, except as necessary to provide context to our ruling. We review the BIAs legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for substantial evidence. Singh v. Whitaker, 914 F.3d 654, 658 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Ali v. Holder, 637 F.3d 1025, 1028–29 (9th Cir. 2011)). We also review adverse credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny Singhs petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the BIAs adverse credibility determination and denial of Singhs asylum claim. Pursuant to the REAL ID Act, the IJ may, in “[c]onsidering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors ․ base a credibility determination on the demeanor” of the applicant, “consistency between the applicants or witnesss written and oral statements,” “the internal consistency of each such statement,” and “any other relevant factor.” Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1039–40 (quoting 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)). The BIA highlighted several reasons for affirming the IJs decision: (1) inconsistencies between Singhs and Kaurs testimonies; (2) “varying and implausible testimony” regarding an omission from Singhs asylum interview that his brother was arrested because of Singh; and (3) Singhs overall demeanor. The record reflects that there was considerable confusion in Kaurs testimony regarding who was at the home when police visited, whether they visited, and what they did, and some of Kaurs testimony was inconsistent with Singhs testimony. Additionally, the IJs demeanor finding adequately referred to the non-credible aspects of Singhs demeanor: “[H]e testified confidently and clearly on direct examination but became nonresponsive, evasive, and self-contradictory when questioned about inconsistencies.” See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[A]n IJ can meet the IJs obligation to provide specific examples of the petitioners demeanor by making explicit reference to particular unrecorded aspects of demeanor” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Singhs documentary evidence did not rehabilitate his testimony or independently establish his burden of proof. Therefore, we uphold the BIAs adverse credibility determination and the denial of asylum, and we need not reach the issue of safe relocation in India.
2. Because Singh is not eligible for asylum, he does not satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).
3. Because we uphold the BIAs adverse credibility determination, Singhs CAT claim must be evaluated solely on the background documents submitted, Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49, and this evidence does not compel the conclusion that Singh is more likely than not to be tortured in India on account of his political affiliation with the Mann party. The background documents fail to establish that Singh faces a clear probability of torture if he returns to India because most of the documents did not discuss the Mann party specifically, and they focused more generally on anti-Sikh and Hindu nationalist sentiments. Substantial evidence supports the BIAs denial of CAT protection.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Harjinder Singhs wife, Gurjit Kaur, is a derivative asylum applicant.