FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GOBINDER SINGH, No. 08-72321
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-762-477
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SKOPIL, and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Gobinder Singh (“Singh”) is a citizen of India who seeks asylum,
withholding of removal and protection under the United Nations Convention
Against Torture (“CAT”). He claims that he has been persecuted primarily on
account of his affiliation with the Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar (“SADA”) party.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The immigration judge (“IJ”) found Singh not credible. The Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed this decision.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review the agency’s
decision only to ensure that the agency’s credibility determination is supported by
substantial evidence. Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny
Singh’s petition for review of the BIA’s decision.
The facts are known to the parties; we do not repeat them.
The IJ’s conclusion that Singh was not credible was supported by substantial
evidence. Singh correctly asserts that“minor discrepancies in dates that are
attributable to the applicant’s language problems or typographical errors and
cannot be viewed as attempts by the applicant to enhance his claims of persecution
have no bearing on credibility.” Damaize-Job v. INS, 787 F.2d 1332, 1337 (9th
Cir. 1986). When discrepancies regarding a particular date are crucial to an
asylum applicant’s claim of persecution, however, an IJ may consider them. Don
v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 742-43 (9th Cir. 2007). This is particularly true in
cases such as Singh’s where the inconsistent date “involved the very event upon
which [the applicant] predicated his claim for asylum.” Id. at 741 (citing
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001)).
The IJ properly found that there were inconsistencies regarding crucial dates,
2
as well as other inconsistencies. Singh claimed that the Indian authorities imputed
to him an anti-government political opinion because of the activities of his brother.
Evidence of his brother’s past persecution is admissible for such a purpose.
Sangha v. INS, 103 F.3d 1482, 1489 (9th Cir. 1997). But Singh’s testimony
regarding his brother’s alleged political activities and resulting persecution was
itself inconsistent. This alone might give the IJ pause.
At the very least, it would have justified the IJ’s request for corroboration
from Singh’s brother, who supposedly resided in Italy at the time of Singh’s
hearing. We have previously stated that “securing an affidavit from a close relative
living in Western Europe should have been a relatively uncomplicated task that
would not pose the type of particularized evidentiary burden that would excuse
corroboration.” Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1044-45 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Singh provided no reason for his failure to provide such corroboration
other than that he did not ask. The IJ was not required to accept such an
explanation.
Singh was entitled to and received a reasonable opportunity to explain the
inconsistencies between his testimony and his asylum application. See Ordonez v.
INS, 345 F.3d 777, 786 (9th Cir. 2003). The IJ was not required to ignore those
inconsistencies merely because of Singh’s unexplained assertion that he did not
3
feel well on the day of the hearing.
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed
establish eligibility under the more stringent standard for withholding of removal.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Singh’s testimony was discredited and he “points to no other
evidence that he could claim the BIA should have considered in making its
determination under the Convention Against Torture,” he has failed to establish
that he is eligible for CAT relief. See id. at 1157.
PETITION DENIED
4