NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JATINDER SINGH, No. 16-71234
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-935-340
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 18, 2018**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK,*** 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 Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
Petitioner Jatinder Singh seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). These applications
were based on his membership in the Mann Party, also known as the Shiromani
Akali Dal (Amritsar) political party, in India. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252, and we deny Singh’s petition.
We review the BIA’s denials for substantial evidence. Ahmed v. Keisler,
504 F.3d 1183, 1191, 1200 (9th Cir. 2007). We limit our review to the BIA’s
decision, and the elements of the immigration judge’s decision that underpin it. Lai
v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966, 970 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d
1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008)).
Credibility determinations must be based on the “totality of the
circumstances,” including “the demeanor, candor, or responsiveness of the
applicant[,] . . . the inherent plausibility of [the applicant’s] account,” and the
consistency of the applicant’s various statements. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii).
The BIA’s adverse credibility determination was based on an inconsistency
between Singh’s testimony and his interview with a Customs and Border
Protection agent, the implausibility of his account of political persecution, and his
demeanor. We “must uphold the BIA’s finding unless the evidence compels a
contrary result.” Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 920 (9th Cir. 2006)
2 16-71234
(quoting Monjaraz–Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th Cir. 2003)). In the
present case, it does not.
Singh also argues that his CAT claim should be remanded. The “failure to
establish eligibility for asylum does not necessarily doom an application for relief
under [CAT].” Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). However, a
petitioner’s CAT claim may fail if it is “based on the same statements . . . that the
BIA determined to be not credible.” Id at 1157. Singh did not present sufficient
independent evidence to establish that he was “more likely than not” to be tortured
in India. 8 C.F.R. § 208.16.
Petition DENIED.
3 16-71234