FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SEP 08 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURDEEP SINGH, No. 12-73447
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-679-782
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 3, 2015**
Seattle, Washington
Before: McKEOWN, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding. The
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) identified three reasons for its adverse
credibility finding: (1) Singh presented inconsistent information surrounding his
political membership; (2) Singh presented inconsistent information about how
*
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).
many times he was arrested and when he joined the Simaranjit Singh Mann
Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) party; and (3) Singh failed to present corroborating
evidence.
1. Singh’s statements were inconsistent between (a) his first asylum application
and asylum interview and (b) his second asylum application and testimony before
the immigration judge (IJ) regarding his membership (or lack thereof) with Babbar
Khalsa International (BKI), a designated terrorist organization. Singh was
confronted with this inconsistency. The IJ reasonably rejected Singh’s explanation
that he was nervous, noting that the interviews occurred a considerable time after
Singh entered the United States, he brought his own interpreter with him, and the
asylum officer testified that he did not appear nervous. See Rizk v. Holder, 629
F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011). The record does not compel a different
conclusion.
2. Singh’s statements were inconsistent about when he became a member of
the SAD party and how many times he was arrested. These inconsistencies go to
the heart of the matter. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1046-47 (9th Cir.
2010) (“Although inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the
petitioner’s claim, when an inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is
of great weight.”). When confronted, Singh again suggested that he was nervous
2
or could not remember what he told the asylum officer. The BIA rejected these
explanations, noting that they were not sufficient explanations for the differences
in testimony. The record does not compel a different conclusion.
3. Singh did not corroborate his claims. Singh challenges this determination,
claiming a credible applicant need not provide corroboration, based on pre-REAL
ID Act precedent. However, under the REAL ID Act, an otherwise credible
applicant may still be required to provide corroborative evidence. See Ren v.
Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1090-91 (9th Cir. 2011). In his opening brief, Singh did
not argue that he was not given an opportunity to provide corroborative evidence,
thus waiving this argument. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1260 (9th
Cir. 1996).
Accordingly, because the adverse credibility finding is supported by
substantial evidence, the BIA’s determination that Singh failed to establish past
persecution and a well-founded fear of persecution is also supported by substantial
evidence. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). The BIA
also did not err in concluding that Singh’s CAT claim failed. Singh points to no
other evidence to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured if he
returned to India. Id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3