Singh v. Bondi

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 12, 2026
• Docket: 25-2018
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AVTAR SINGH; SANDEEP KAUR; A. S.; No. 25-2018 V. S., Agency Nos. A246-601-573 Petitioners, A246-601-574 A246-601-575 v. A246-601-576 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, MEMORANDUM* Respondent.

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

Submitted February 10, 2026** San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, FRIEDLAND, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Avtar Singh1 petitions for review of a decision of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s

* 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). 1 Singh’s wife, Sandeep Kaur, and his two minor children, A.S. and V.S., are derivatives of his asylum claim. (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.

“We review factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations,

for substantial evidence,” Bhattarai v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016)

(quoting Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 2014)), and “[u]nder this

standard, ‘findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would

be compelled to conclude to the contrary.’” Dong v. Garland, 50 F.4th 1291, 1296

(9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020)).

1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility

determination. Taking into account the “totality of the circumstances[] and all

relevant factors,” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2021) (en banc)

(alteration in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii)), the agency

identified several reasons, each supported by evidence in the record, for finding

Singh not credible. Specifically, the agency identified four bases for its adverse

credibility determination: 1) Singh’s indication on his application that he was

detained by police in India, which conflicted with his oral testimony that the police

never “arrested or detained” him; 2) Singh’s unresponsive and evasive demeanor

while giving testimony, particularly during cross-examination; 3) irregularities in

Singh’s medical documents that caused them to appear to be falsified; and 4)

2 25-2018 Singh’s failure to provide evidence corroborating his claim that he had continued

to participate in political activity once in the United States.

Together, the agency’s “specific and cogent reasons supporting [its] adverse

credibility determination” satisfy the substantial evidence standard. Shrestha v.

Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010). We cannot say that “the evidence

that the petitioner presented was ‘so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could

find that [the petitioner] was not credible.’” Malkandi v. Holder, 576 F.3d 906,

917 (9th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)).

2. The agency reasonably concluded that Singh had not demonstrated

eligibility for relief through other evidence independent of his own testimony,

which the agency rejected for lack of credibility. See Kalulu v. Bondi, 128 F.4th

1009, 1023 (9th Cir. 2024), as amended and superseded on denial of reh’g en

banc. The agency reasonably accorded reduced weight to the third-party letters

and affidavits submitted by Singh because they provided minimal details about the

attacks Singh allegedly suffered, and Singh did not produce any of the authors as

witnesses for cross-examination. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th

Cir. 2014) (upholding the agency’s determination that corroborating documents

were insufficient to rehabilitate an asylum applicant’s testimony, in part because

3 25-2018 the preparers were not available for cross-examination).

In light of the agency’s determination that Singh’s testimony lacked

credibility and that the other evidence he submitted was insufficient to support his

claims, the BIA appropriately concluded that Singh’s asylum, withholding of

removal, and CAT claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156-57.

Petition DENIED.2

2 The temporary administrative stay of removal is lifted and the motion to stay removal, Docket No. 3, is denied.

4 25-2018