Sukhwinder Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch

Ninth Circuit

Sukhwinder Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch

620 F. App'x 609

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 20, 2015

Docket13-71139

StatusUnpublished

This text of 620 F. App'x 609 (Sukhwinder Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sukhwinder Singh v. Loretta E. Lynch, 620 F. App'x 609 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Sandra Jonny Zelaya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the omission of four instances of mistreatment from Zelaya’s declaration, as well as her conviction for a crime involving fraud. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of circumstances); see also Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2010) (omission from asylum application of participation in political demonstration supported adverse credibility determination); see also Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 931, 938-39 (9th Cir.2005) (criminal conviction involving fraud undermined credibility).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Zelaya’s CAT claim be *610 cause it was based on the same statements that were found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the-consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49. We reject Zelaya’s contention that the agency failed to consider the country reports evidence and Salvadorian political climate in denying her application. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006) (petitioner did not overcome presumption BIA reviewed the record).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Sandra Jonny Zelaya, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir.2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on the omission of four instances of mistreatment from Zelaya’s declaration, as well as her conviction for a crime involving fraud. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of circumstances); see also Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2010) (omission from asylum application of participation in political demonstration supported adverse credibility determination); see also Unuakhaulu v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 931, 938-39 (9th Cir.2005) (criminal conviction involving fraud undermined credibility).

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Zelaya’s CAT claim be *610 cause it was based on the same statements that were found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not she would be tortured by or with the-consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49. We reject Zelaya’s contention that the agency failed to consider the country reports evidence and Salvadorian political climate in denying her application. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir.2006) (petitioner did not overcome presumption BIA reviewed the record).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

620 F. App'x 609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sukhwinder-singh-v-loretta-e-lynch-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack