FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 20 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMRITPAL SINGH, No. 16-70799
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-194-361
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted September 13, 2018
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA, RAWLINSON, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Amritpal Singh (Singh), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Singh challenges only the adverse credibility determination made by the
Immigration Judge (IJ). Because Singh filed his application for relief after 2005,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
the REAL ID Act governs the adverse credibility determination. See Singh v.
Lynch, 802 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2015).
1. Because the BIA specifically addressed the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination, Singh’s challenge to the adverse credibility determination was
sufficiently exhausted. See Rodriguez-Castellon v. Holder, 733 F.3d 847, 852 (9th
Cir. 2013) (noting that the court “may review any issue addressed on the merits by
the BIA, regardless whether it was raised to the BIA by the petitioner”) (citation
omitted).
2. The BIA cited several grounds in support of upholding the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination. We address only the discrepancy surrounding whether
Singh’s attackers in July, 2010, were aware that Singh was a member of the Akali
Dal Mann Party. Singh first testified that he did not recognize his attackers, but
later stated that he recognized his attackers from the gurdwara. Singh also
equivocated as to whether his attackers called his name or merely flagged him
down. After the IJ asked Singh to clarify, Singh conceded that he did not know
how the attackers would have recognized him. The IJ considered the totality of the
circumstances, noted the inconsistent testimony, and provided reasons for rejecting
Singh’s proffered explanations. See Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir.
2014) (identifying “credibility factors”) (citation and internal quotation marks
2
omitted). Substantial evidence therefore supports the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination. See Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017)
(reviewing adverse credibility determination for substantial evidence). Because
this inconsistency is sufficient to support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding, we
need not address the remaining grounds cited by the BIA. See Rizk v. Holder, 629
F.3d 1083, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because we must uphold the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination so long as even one basis is supported by substantial
evidence, we focus on one of the key contradictions the IJ identified.”) (citation
omitted).
PETITION DENIED.
3