Singh v. Whitaker, 011519 FED9, 16-73500

Docket Nº:16-73500
Party Name:GURPARTAP SINGH, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judge Panel:Before: M. SMITH and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
Case Date:January 15, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

GURPARTAP SINGH, Petitioner,

v.

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-73500

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 15, 2019

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Argued and Submitted December 18, 2018 San Francisco, California

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A200-943-733

Before: M. SMITH and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, [**] Judge.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Petitioner Gurpartap Singh, a native and citizen of India, appeals the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(1) and deny the petition because substantial evidence supports the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision.

The BIA found Singh's explanations not credible on the basis of several discrepancies and omissions. Credibility decisions are made based on the totality of the circumstances under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) and are reviewed for substantial evidence. Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 2009) (specifying the substantial evidence review standard for adverse credibility decisions).

Substantial evidence supports the BIA's determination that Singh's testimony is not credible. Although inconsistencies with his documentation may be insufficient to negatively impact his asylum claim on their own, Singh's failure to mention his arrest and beatings by police during his credible fear interview in conjunction with these documentation issues, although borderline, is sufficient to support the BIA's adverse credibility determination. Our precedent acknowledges that differences in testimony given during an informal proceeding and a removal hearing are not enough to sustain an adverse credibility determination. See Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1242-43 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding an adverse credibility determination unsupported by substantial evidence when based on differences between testimony given in a bond hearing and removal hearing). Various procedural safeguards, however, were in place during the credible fear interview such that...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP