Singh v. Barr, 101420 FED9, 18-72301

Docket Nº:18-72301
Party Name:BALKAR SINGH, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judge Panel:Before: GRABER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and KOBAYASHI, District Judge.
Case Date:October 14, 2020
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

BALKAR SINGH, Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 18-72301

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

October 14, 2020

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted October 8, 2020 [**] Seattle, Washington

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A202-067-691

Before: GRABER and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and KOBAYASHI, [***] District Judge.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Petitioner Balkar Singh is a native and citizen of India. He seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") final order affirming the immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We deny the petition.

The IJ found Petitioner not credible, and the BIA affirmed the adverse credibility determination. We review an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). "[W]e must uphold the IJ's adverse credibility determination so long as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence." Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011).

The BIA recited and relied on evidence that amply supported the adverse credibility finding, including inconsistencies between Petitioner's testimony and documentary evidence. Petitioner testified that he had been attacked and beaten with sticks on two occasions by members of another political party; however, a written document purporting to have been prepared by his own party recounted that Petitioner was "many times arrested and tortured by state police." Two documents concerning the length of Petitioner's medical treatment were inconsistent with each other. Petitioner's testimony was also inconsistent with a declaration by his wife concerning who went to the police station to report the beatings and who received threatening phone calls. While Petitioner testified that his father received the calls and relayed them to his wife, his wife reported that she received them directly and as a result had to change her telephone number.

Petitioner was asked about these inconsistencies and was given an opportunity to explain them. See Ren v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1092 n.14 (9th Cir. 2011) (describing how the BIA must give a petitioner an opportunity to explain any inconsistency that is relied on for an adverse credibility determination). The IJ...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP