FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKHWINDER SINGH, AKA Sukh No. 13-71139
Sinch,
Agency No. A094-023-888
Petitioner,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 14, 2015**
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Sukhwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for withholding of
removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
*
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).
jurisdiction is governed by 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for
review.
We lack jurisdiction over Singh’s claim that the agency erred in admitting
his sworn airport statement to the record, as he did not exhaust this claim before
the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Singh’s prior dishonesty under oath. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048
(adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the totality of
circumstances); see also Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011)
(“An asylum applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts doubt on his
credibility and the rest of his story.”). Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s
determination that Singh lacked an excusable justification for his false statements
regarding his family’s presence and activities in the U.S. because he did not make
the statements while fleeing persecution. See Singh, 643 F.3d at 1181 (upholding
agency’s adverse credibility finding based on petitioner’s lies to immigration
authorities that were “completely unrelated to escaping immediate danger or
2 13-71139
gaining entry into the United States”); cf. Akinmade v. INS, 196 F.3d 951, 955-56
(9th Cir.1999) (“a genuine refugee escaping persecution may lie about his
citizenship to immigration officials in order to flee his place of persecution or
secure entry into the United States”). Thus, we deny the petition as to Singh’s
withholding of removal claim.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same statements the IJ found not credible, and the
record does not otherwise compel the finding that it is more likely than not he
would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if
returned to India. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 13-71139