Jaskaran Singh v. Merrick Garland

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 16 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JASKARAN SINGH, No. 20-73007 Petitioner, Agency No. A208-205-877 v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted August 11, 2022 Seattle, Washington Before: CHRISTEN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Jaskaran Singh, a native and citizen of India, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. 1252, and we deny the petition. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we need not recite them here. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039–42 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating standard of review). “Where, as here, the BIA cites Burbano and also provides its own review of the evidence and law, we review both the IJ’s and the BIA’s decisions.” Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). The agency found petitioner’s statements not credible because, although petitioner testified that the police told him that they would falsely accuse him, beat him up, and throw him in jail if he came back to the police, petitioner did not mention the police threat in his credible fear interview. Petitioner argues that the asylum officer did not provide him an opportunity to include the police threats during his asylum office interview and stated that he tried to provide testimony to the officer to explain the police threats but the officer stopped him. As the IJ noted, however, there is no indication in the record that petitioner was prevented from providing information related to the police threats. Indeed, the asylum officer asked petitioner multiple questions to elicit testimony about his fear of the police, specific questions about the police, and open-ended questions. See Silva-Pereira v. 2 Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185–87 (9th Cir. 2016) (affirming the agency’s adverse credibility determination in part because petitioner failed to disclose “pivotal” or “crucial” events, or events that would create a more compelling fear of persecution). As another example, petitioner testified that after he left India, his parents told him members of the police, the Badal Party, and the BJP Party came to their house to look for him three to four times because of his affiliation with the Mann Party. But petitioner’s father’s affidavit did not mention these incidents, and he was not called to testify as a witness. The agency considered petitioner’s explanations, including that his father is not educated, but rejected them. Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1044 (“[I]n evaluating inconsistencies, the relevant circumstances that an IJ should consider include the petitioner’s explanation for …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals