FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 4 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUKHTIRATH SINGH, No. 15-73886
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-243-265
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 18, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: PAEZ and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and ANELLO,** District Judge.
Petitioner Sukhtirath Singh (Singh) petitions for review of the decision of
the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration
Judge’s denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and deferral
of removal under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Singh maintains that he
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Michael M. Anello, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
is entitled to asylum and withholding of removal because he was persecuted by
Sikhs due to his adherence to the religious teachings of a non-Sikh guru. Singh
contends that substantial evidence does not support the Immigration Judge’s
adverse credibility determination. Singh further asserts that he is entitled to
deferral of removal under the CAT because he demonstrated that it was more likely
than not that he would be tortured in India.
“Under the REAL ID Act, which applies here, there is no presumption that
an applicant for relief is credible, and the [Immigration Judge] is authorized to base
an adverse credibility determination on the totality of the circumstances and all
relevant factors. . . .” Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Even in the absence of the
Immigration Judge’s findings concerning Singh’s demeanor, substantial evidence
supports the adverse credibility determination due to inconsistencies between
Singh’s testimony and his original statement in support of his asylum application.
See id. In his original written statement, Singh related that he and his brother were
attacked, and that they were rendered “unconscious.” However, Singh testified
that he was alone when attacked, his brother was beaten later in the evening, and he
became “nervous,” rather than “unconscious.” Although Singh submitted an
2
amended statement, the amended statement failed to persuasively explain why his
testimony contradicted the original statement supporting his asylum application.
The BIA concluded that the supporting documentation submitted by Singh
did not rehabilitate his inconsistent testimony, and further supported the adverse
credibility determination. Indeed, certain documents undermined Singh’s claim
that the police refused to address violence between Sikhs and followers of the guru.
Other documentation submitted by Singh, such as a letter briefly stating that Singh
and his brothers were “in big problem [sic] in India because of Sikh . . . people,” a
medical certificate lacking details regarding the source of Singh’s injuries, and
statements from his family members do not compel a finding that Singh’s
testimony was credible. See Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir.
2016) (explaining that “in order to reverse the BIA, we must determine that the
evidence not only supports a contrary conclusion, but compels it—and also
compels the further conclusion that the petitioner meets the requisite standard for
obtaining relief”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphases in the
original).
Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of deferral of removal
pursuant to the CAT. In addition to considering the adverse credibility
determination, the BIA concluded that Singh “has not claimed past torture or
3
provided sufficient reasons why he would be targeted for such mistreatment in the
future.” The country reports did not reflect that followers of the guru were
subjected to torture. See Mairena v. Barr, 917 F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2019)
(holding that substantial evidence supported denial of deferral of removal under the
CAT based on an adverse credibility determination and the BIA’s review of the
record, including country reports).
PETITION DENIED.
4