FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
APR 19 2018
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NISHAN SINGH, No. 14-73398
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-997-667
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 12, 2018**
Seattle, Washington
Before: TASHIMA and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and MIHM,*** District Judge.
Nishan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Michael M. Mihm, United States District Judge for the
Central District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
judge’s ("IJ") decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). We deny the
petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination,
which rested on significant inconsistencies in the record (among other reasons).
For example, Petitioner testified that he and his mother were home alone when
Punjab police arrested him. But Petitioner submitted affidavits completed by
family friends in which those friends stated that they were present at Petitioner’s
home when he was arrested. Those inconsistencies are not "trivial." Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010). They bear on Petitioner’s account of
his arrest, which is the central event on which Petitioner rests his claim of past
persecution. Petitioner was given an adequate opportunity to explain the
inconsistencies. Soto-Olarte v. Holder, 555 F.3d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 2009). His
argument that the conflicting statements in the affidavits resulted from errors in
translation is unavailing. Petitioner had the opportunity to review the affidavits
before submitting them and did nothing to clarify the inconsistencies. Because the
IJ’s adverse credibility determination was permissible, we deny the petition as it
pertains to Petitioner’s claims for asylum and withholding of removal.
2
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s CAT
claim. On this record, the BIA permissibly held that Petitioner failed to show that
it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence of
the Indian government. Silaya v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).
Petition DENIED.
3