FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMANDEEP SINGH CHOUHAN; No. 10-73245
MANJIT KAUR; ANHADDEEP KAUR,
Agency Nos. A089-703-904
Petitioners, A089-703-905
A089-703-906
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM*
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 11, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Amandeep Singh Chouhan, a native and citizen of India, challenges the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of his request for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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).
Chouhan claims that he and his family were persecuted in India because of his
political activities. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Chouhan’s application on
the ground that he lacked credibility, and the BIA affirmed.
The BIA’s adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial
evidence. See Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 2013). Chouhan
testified before the IJ that he had been severely beaten following his second arrest
by police, but he failed to mention in his declaration this “dramatic” and “pivotal”
event. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003). He also
failed to provide any corroboration for his claim that he was beaten or that he
received medical attention afterwards. See 8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). In addition,
he misidentified the party of the political candidate for whom he claimed to have
campaigned.
Chouhan also argues that the IJ violated his due process rights by conducting
an internet search during his hearing to determine the party affiliation of the
candidate whom he allegedly supported. Chouhan stated that he had no objection
to the search when asked by the IJ. See In re Jimenez-Santillano, 21 I. & N. Dec.
567, 570 n.2 (B.I.A. 1996) (en banc) (holding that issues not raised before the IJ
are waived). Moreover, Chouhan cannot show prejudice. See Pagayon v. Holder,
675 F.3d 1182, 1191–92 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). He also had the opportunity
2
to introduce contrary evidence, but did not do so. Chouhan therefore was not
deprived of “a full and fair hearing of his claims.” Id. at 1191 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Chouhan’s petition for review is DENIED.
3