NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 15 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANPREET SINGH, AKA Ravi Thapa, No. 17-72793
Petitioner, Agency No. A208-191-871
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 13, 2020**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and GWIN,*** District
Judge.
Manpreet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) affirming the 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 this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable James S. Gwin, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding from removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. section 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. The
agency’s adverse credibility finding was “supported by omissions” of “new
allegations that tell a ‘much different––and more compelling––story of persecution
than [the] initial application.’” Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir.
2016), quoting Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011).
The IJ and Board relied on Singh’s omissions in his asylum application and
accompanying written declaration about whether his June 2014 attackers were
government officials and whether he was threatened by the police after attempting
to report the attack. On direct examination at his merits hearing, Singh testified that
the police refused to take his report and demanded he “better go away” or that they
would “beat [him] too.” However, Singh’s written declaration, which described this
same incident, omitted any claim that the police physically threatened him. In
addition, on cross-examination, when pressed about how he was able to identify his
June 2014 attackers as government officials, Singh pointed to the sticker on his
attackers’ van, which allegedly displayed the logo from the Badal and BJP parties.
Yet, in his written declaration, Singh swore that he had observed the stickers on the
van in the second incident in December 2014. Because Singh’s claim for asylum
2
was based on his fear that members of the Badal and BJP parties would target him
if he returned to India, the Board reasonably concluded that Singh had omitted
allegations in his asylum application that were “crucial to establishing” whether he
would be “persecuted for [his] political opinion.” Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050,
1057 (9th Cir. 2010).
Because these details were crucial to establishing Singh’s eligibility, we
distinguish the principal case on which he relies––Lai v. Holder, 773 F.3d 966 (9th
Cir. 2014). Unlike the material omissions here, the omissions supporting the
agency’s adverse credibility finding in Lai were immaterial to his
application. See id. at 973-74. Accordingly, Lai is inapposite.
The Board did not err in rejecting Singh’s explanation for his omissions.
When asked by the IJ about the omissions, Singh testified that he “wrote whatever
[he] remembered” and that he “knew” that he could “tell all these things” at his
merits hearing. However, Singh’s belief that it was “not necessary” to include an
allegation because it “would be discussed at the [merits] hearing” was “not
persuasive enough to compel the conclusion that the omissions were immaterial.”
Kin, 595 F.3d at 1057. Accordingly, Singh’s explanation was implausible “in light
of the importance of the omitted incidents to his asylum claim.” Zamanov, 649 F.3d
at 974 (citation omitted).
Because Singh was not credible, he was not eligible for asylum. See Farah v.
3
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). He therefore necessarily failed to
meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Pedro-Mateo v.
I.N.S., 224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we deny Singh’s petition
for review of the Board’s decision as to his asylum and withholding of removal
claims.
The Board also did not err in affirming the IJ’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim.
Singh’s challenge to the Board’s denial of his CAT claim is based solely on the IJ’s
adverse credibility finding. Because the record does not compel reversal of the
adverse credibility finding, the record likewise does not compel reversal of the
Board’s denial of the CAT claim.
PETITION DENIED.
4