LAW.coLAW.co

SINGH v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-02-04No. No. 15-72602

Summary

Holding. The petition for review is denied. Substantial evidence supported the immigration judge's adverse credibility finding and the Board of Immigration Appeals' conclusion that, absent credible testimony, the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish eligibility for asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Devinder Singh petitioned for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal challenging an immigration judge's denial of relief from removal. Singh claimed he fled India due to political persecution, testifying that his father—who shared his political views—was beaten to death, causing Singh to fear similar harm. However, during a credible-fear interview conducted under oath with an interpreter, Singh made no mention of his father's death and stated he was unaware of anyone in his political party being harmed. The immigration judge found Singh's testimony not credible based on these material inconsistencies, and substantial evidence supported that determination. The court also found that documentary evidence in the record cast doubt on Singh's account of his father's beating.

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

Key issues

  • Credibility determination based on inconsistencies between credible-fear interview and merits hearing testimony
  • Reliability and admissibility of credible-fear interview notes
  • Sufficiency of evidence for asylum and withholding-of-removal claims

Procedural posture

Singh sought judicial review of the BIA's dismissal of his appeal from the immigration judge's denial of removal relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Devinder Singh timely seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judges (“IJ”) denial of relief from removal. Reviewing the agencys factual findings for substantial evidence, Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020), we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJs adverse credibility determination. During the merits hearing, Petitioner testified that he fled India because his father, who held the same political views as Petitioner, had been beaten so badly that he died and Petitioner feared the same fate. But during his credible-fear interview, given under oath and with the assistance of an interpreter, Petitioner stated that he did not know of anyone in his political party who had been harmed, and he did not mention his fathers death. See Mukulumbutu, 977 F.3d at 926 (holding that a credible-fear interview may be considered when there are “sufficient indicia of reliability,” such as when “the interviews were conducted under oath, with contemporaneous notes containing the questions asked, and transcribed ․ with the aid of an interpreter”). Contrary to Petitioners inexplicable assertion on appeal, the typed, coherent notes from the credible-fear interview are neither “unreadable” nor “illegible.” Neither the BIA nor the IJ was required to believe Petitioners confusing explanation for why, during the credible-fear interview, he did not mention his fathers death. Moreover, the agency permissibly concluded that the documentary evidence cast doubt on Petitioners claim about the beating of his father.

Substantial evidence supports the BIAs conclusion that, without credible testimony, the remaining evidence in the record is insufficient to establish eligibility for asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Petition DENIED.