NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 8 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURBHAG SINGH SANDHU, No. 15-72932
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-943-694
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 1, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: IKUTA and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges, and EATON,*** Judge.
Gurbhag Singh Sandhu, a native and citizen of India, applied for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
***
Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International
Trade, sitting by designation.
(CAT). After making an adverse credibility determination, the Immigration Judge
(IJ) denied all relief, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed
Sandhu’s subsequent appeal. Sandhu now petitions for review. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.
1. Sandhu challenges the agency’s adverse credibility finding. We
review credibility determinations for substantial evidence. See Bassene v. Holder,
737 F.3d 530, 536 (9th Cir. 2013). In reviewing the BIA’s decision, “we consider
only the grounds relied upon by that agency.” Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657
F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th
Cir. 2004) (per curiam)).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding. First,
during a sworn interview with Border Patrol, Sandhu claimed fear of an individual
named Jaspal Singh but disavowed this fear during his Credible Fear Interview.
Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding that lying
under oath to immigration officials supported an adverse credibility finding).
Sandhu had a reasonable opportunity to explain his misrepresentation during cross
examination when he testified that he feared Border Patrol officials because of his
past interaction with Indian police. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275
(9th Cir. 2007) (finding the noncitizen had a reasonable opportunity to explain
where she “tried to explain the numerous inconsistencies” but “[t]he IJ ultimately
2
found these explanations insufficient”).
Second, Sandhu did not disclose being attacked by the police while engaging
in political protest in his Credible Fear Interview or asylum application.1
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding based on these facts
because they added “great weight to his claim of political persecution.” See
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). Sandhu argues that an
adverse credibility finding cannot be based on these omissions because it is unclear
whether he was physically beaten by the police. However, the agency’s decision
does not turn on whether Sandhu suffered physical blows, but on his failure to
mention being a part of a group attacked by the police, an event serious enough to
motivate him to flee his village.
2. The BIA did not engage in impermissible factfinding by upholding the
IJ’s credibility determination based only on Sandhu’s fabricated Jaspal Singh story
and omission of the police attack from his Credible Fear Interview and asylum
application. These inconsistencies are of “great weight” in the credibility
determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010).
Indeed, the IJ identified these inconsistencies as the “most concerning” part of
1
Because Sandhu’s misrepresentation regarding Jaspal Singh and his failure
to mention the police attack in his Credible Fear Interview and asylum application
are sufficient to uphold the adverse credibility determination, we do not reach
Sandhu’s challenges to the BIA’s reliance on his failure to mention the police
attack during his Border Patrol interview.
3
Sandhu’s testimony. It was therefore proper for the BIA to uphold the IJ’s
credibility determination.
3. Sandhu argues that record country conditions compel the conclusion
that he will be tortured in India, entitling him to protection under the CAT. We
review factual findings underlying denial of relief under CAT for substantial
evidence. See Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003). While the
country conditions evidence documents police abuse in India, including toward
Mann party members, it does not compel the conclusion that Sandhu himself will
be the target of police torture. See Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23
(9th Cir. 2006) (finding that, “[a]lthough the reports confirm that torture takes
place in Yemen, they do not compel the conclusion that [the noncitizen] would be
tortured if returned”). Therefore, substantial evidence supports denial of CAT
protection.
PETITION DENIED.
4