FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 15 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAGRAJ SINGH, No. 15-71074
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-534-545
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 13, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: WATFORD and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and FEINERMAN,***
District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Gary Feinerman, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3
Jagraj Singh challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture. The Immigration Judge (IJ) concluded that the testimony Singh
offered in support of his application was not credible because he could not provide
meaningful answers when questioned about his political party’s platform, and his
testimony was evasive and inconsistent. The BIA found no clear error in the IJ’s
determination, and we hold that substantial evidence supports it.
Singh testified that he belonged to the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann (SADM)
political party in India, yet he was unable to explain basic elements of the party’s
platform, including the meaning of Khalistan. Contrary to Singh’s argument,
reports in the record indicate that the Khalistan movement is a central tenet of the
SADM party. The record also supports the agency’s conclusion that Singh gave
inconsistent and evasive testimony when questioned about his experience in India
after he was released from police custody. Singh’s declaration in support of his
asylum application stated that after he was released, he avoided contact with police
and stayed out of trouble. Yet Singh testified that police continued to harass him
after he was released. When pressed on this claim, Singh’s answers were
nonresponsive and vague.
Page 3 of 3
The record does not compel the conclusion that Singh testified credibly. In
the absence of credible testimony, Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003). Singh’s request for relief under the Convention Against Torture fails as
well because it is based on the same testimony the agency deemed not credible.
See id. at 1157.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.