FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAGTAR SINGH, No. 07-74634
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-287-634
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 15, 2010
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and TODD, Senior
District Judge.**
Jagtar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) final removal order affirming the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ’s) determination that Singh lacked credibility and that his asylum
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable James Dale Todd, Senior United States District Judge
for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.
application was frivolous. Singh seeks asylum on account of his alleged
persecution because of his brother’s membership in the Akali Dar Amritsar
political party. As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we
do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our decision. This court has
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on Singh’s submission of a fraudulent asylum application. See INS v. Elias-
Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992); see also Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745
(9th Cir. 2004) (fraudulent documents going to the heart of claim may justify
adverse credibility determination). At Singh’s asylum hearing, government
witness, Boota Singh Basi, testified that Basi and his partner Kashmir Singh Malhi
ran a business preparing fraudulent asylum applications. Basi testified that every
application he and his partner ever filed was false. Although Singh denied that
Basi had prepared his application, Special Agent Timothy Eisenhart testified that
Singh’s application contained statements and factual scenarios that were virtually
identical to those found in at least three other asylum applications that Basi and
Malhi had fraudulently prepared. For example, all four documents alleged an
arrest outside a gurudwara, a police jeep stuck in the mud, and an escape through
wild vegetation.
-2-
Further, although Singh’s application was signed by preparer “Balbir
Singh,” Basi testified that he often used false preparer names on his fraudulent
applications. Singh was unable to provide any evidence that Balbir Singh actually
existed or had prepared his applications, despite his claim that he knew Balbir
Singh through friends. Finally, Basi—who testified that he only notarized
documents in connection with fraudulent applications—had translated, certified, or
notarized many of the documents Singh submitted to the asylum office, and Malhi
served as Singh’s interpreter at his asylum interview.
The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Singh submitted a fraudulent
asylum application containing a false story of persecution, and Singh’s only
corroborating evidence was his own insistence that the story in the application was
true. See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[W]here the IJ has
reason to question the applicant’s credibility, and the applicant fails to produce
non-duplicative, material, easily available corroborating evidence, . . . an adverse
credibility finding will withstand appellate review.”).1 Therefore, the IJ’s finding
1
Indeed, cases generated by Basi’s fraudulent scheme have flooded the
courts of appeal. See, e.g., Singh v. Attorney Gen., 281 F. App’x 142, 144 (3d Cir.
2008) (denying petition for review in light of evidence that Basi had fraudulently
prepared petitioner’s application, coupled with petitioner’s failure to counter that
evidence other than by “repeating his original assertions”).
-3-
that Singh was not credible and that his application was fraudulent is supported by
substantial evidence.
Singh also challenges the IJ’s finding of frivolousness. An application is
deemed frivolous if “any of its material elements is deliberately fabricated.” 8
C.F.R. § 1208.20. Applying the factors outlined in Matter of Y-L-, 24 I. & N. Dec.
151, 155 (BIA 2007), and adopted by this court in Ahir v. Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912,
917 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm the frivolous asylum application determination.
Singh had notice of the consequences of filing a frivolous application. In addition,
the IJ made separate findings of frivolousness that were supported by cogent and
convincing reasons, and informed Singh that Eisenhart and Basi would be called to
testify against him. The IJ also gave Singh an opportunity to address and account
for the evidence of frivolousness. For the same reasons supporting the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination, substantial evidence supports the IJ’s conclusion that
Singh’s asylum application was frivolous, thus barring Singh from any future
benefits under the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(d)(6);
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.
-4-