Singh v. Bondi

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 12 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDEEP SINGH; RAJBEER No. 23-3889 KAUR; PRABHJOT LNU; SEERAT JEET, Agency Nos. A240-337-541 Petitioners, A240-337-542 A240-337-543 v. A240-337-544 PAMELA J. BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 6, 2025** San Francisco, California

Before: WARDLAW, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Sandeep Singh, his wife, and two daughters (collectively “Singh”), natives

and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’

(“BIA”) decision dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). their requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny

the petition.

We review the BIA’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT

relief for substantial evidence. Duran-Rodriguez v. Barr, 918 F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th

Cir. 2019). We review the BIA’s credibility findings for substantial evidence.

Kumar v. Garland, 18 F.4th 1148, 1153 (9th Cir. 2021). Under the substantial

evidence standard, we “must uphold the agency determination unless the evidence

compels a contrary conclusion.” Duran-Rodriguez, 918 F.3d at 1028.

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination. In assessing an adverse credibility finding, we consider “the totality

of the circumstances[] and all relevant factors . . . without regard to whether an

inconsistency, inaccuracy, or falsehood goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.”

8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). And “when an inconsistency is at the heart of the

claim it doubtless is of great weight.” Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th

Cir. 2010). The following factors cited by the BIA support its adverse credibility

determination:

First, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that it was

implausible for Singh to have attended a religious festival with 100 people on April

13, 2020 without repercussions. The record reflects that on April 13, 2020 there

2 23-3889 were no religious exceptions to India’s country-wide lockdown. The IJ properly

considered Singh’s explanation for the perceived implausibility, see Shrestha, 590

F.3d at 1044, and the agency is not required to accept unpersuasive explanations, see

Cortez-Pineda v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010).

Second, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Singh

provided inconsistent evidence and testimony regarding his medical treatment after

his two days in police custody. Singh testified that he received medical treatment

after being released from custody, but his written declaration contains no mention of

such treatment despite describing multiple other occasions where he sought medical

treatment. The severity of the harm Singh suffered at the hands of the police goes

to the heart of his claims for relief and “is of great weight” in an agency’s credibility

determination. Id.

Third, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Singh

provided testimony and written evidence about the location of his father’s death

inconsistent with other evidence. Singh testified and submitted written evidence that

his father died in his fields, but his father’s death certificate indicates that he died in

a nursing home. The IJ afforded Singh the opportunity to explain this discrepancy,

and a reasonable factfinder could determine that Singh’s explanation was not

satisfactory.

3 23-3889 Fourth, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that the

notarized marriage certificate with fraudulent signatures properly contributed to an

adverse credibility finding. Singh testified that his agent signed the marriage

certificate on behalf of him and his wife to explain why the certificate post-dated his

departure from India. But the IJ did not find his explanation credible, because the

document was notarized without any indication that an agent signed for Singh and

his wife. This inconsistency does not go to the heart of Singh’s claims for relief, but

even collateral falsehoods can become a basis for an adverse credibility

determination. See id. at 1043.

2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of asylum and

withholding of removal. Absent credible testimony, Singh did not establish a

reasonable likelihood of persecution if removed to India, and thus failed to show

eligibility for asylum, see id. at 1048, or withholding of removal, see Ramirez-Munoz

v. Lynch, 816 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2016) (“A petitioner who fails to satisfy the

lower standard of proof for asylum necessarily fails to satisfy the more stringent

standard for withholding of removal.”). Singh does not present any arguments in his

opening brief concerning the BIA’s denial of his CAT claim, so he forfeited the issue

on appeal. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259–60 (9th Cir. 1996).

PETITION DENIED.1

1 Singh’s motion to stay removal (Dkt. 4) is denied as moot.

4 23-3889