FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OCT 28 2015
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BAGGA SINGH, AKA Ravi Sahota, No. 12-72132
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-116-417
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 22, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: REINHARDT and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges and MOLLOY,** Senior
District Judge.
Petitioner Bagga Singh left India and entered the United States in 1993. He
concedes removability, but seeks asylum. The BIA denied his asylum application
because it found that he was not credible. We deny Singh’s petition for review.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
Singh claims that he was persecuted because of his affiliation with a Sikh
political party. He states that he fled because Indian police were looking for him
and his father because of their role in a political rally in April 1993. In his
declaration, Singh stated that his father was arrested and “subject to police torture”
shortly after Singh left the country. His father’s own declarations do not mention
that arrest. During direct examination, Singh was asked: “Was [your father]
physically harmed by the police” during the 1993 arrest? Singh replied: “No, sir.”
On cross-examination, Singh instead testified that “the police arrested my father
and beat him also.” The IJ noted the discrepancies between Singh’s declaration
and his testimony and asked Singh to explain. He said “Like I meant to say that
bodily, there was no injuries as such, but otherwise, they had beaten him.” The IJ
found that Singh’s testimony was inconsistent with his claim that his father had
been tortured and found that Singh lacked credibility (in part) because of this. The
BIA agreed.
We review the BIA’s denial of asylum eligibility for substantial evidence.
Kumar v. Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2006). Because Singh’s
application predates the REAL ID Act, an inconsistency must go to the heart of the
claim to support an adverse credibility finding. Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964
(9th Cir. 2004).
2
Singh argues that there is a reasonable explanation for the discrepancies:
there was a mistranslation. Singh, however, was asked directly about the
discrepancies, and he did not say that they were the result of mistranslation.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Singh’s declaration and
testimony were inconsistent. Singh next contends that these discrepancies do not
go to the heart of the matter. The level of abuse suffered by Singh’s father,
however, is important in two ways. First, it bears materially on what would have
happened to Singh if he had not fled. Police were allegedly looking for both him
and his father. The police’s treatment of his father is important evidence of whether
they were in fact looking for Singh and what they would do if they found him.
Second, attacks on family members can directly constitute part of past persecution,
and here they formed a significant part of Singh’s claim. See Mashiri v. Ashcroft,
383 F.3d 1112, 1121 (9th Cir. 2004).1
PETITION DENIED.
1
Singh waived his claims for withholding of removal and relief under the
Convention Against Torture by not challenging the BIA’s denial of them in his
brief. Corro-Barragan v. Holder, 718 F.3d 1174, 1177 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013).
3