FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
FEB 17 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURINDERPAL SINGH, No. 20-70757
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-905-629
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 11, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: BERZON, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Gurinderpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
*
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).
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a), and we deny the petition.1
We review the BIA’s decision that an alien has not established eligibility for
asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT relief to determine whether it is supported
by substantial evidence. Davila v. Barr, 968 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2020). To
prevail under the substantial evidence standard, the petitioner “must show that the
evidence not only supports, but compels the conclusion that these findings and
decisions are erroneous.” Cordon-Garcia v. I.N.S., 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir.
2000) (citation omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination. Ren
v. Holder, 648 F.3d 1079, 1085 (9th Cir. 2011). Singh testified inconsistently
about events material to his claim that he was persecuted by members of the Akali
Dal Badal Party for his membership in the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann Amritsar
Party. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir. 2010) (“When an
inconsistency is at the heart of the claim it doubtless is of great weight”). First,
Singh testified inconsistently about whether he lived in hiding in his family home
after the January 18, 2013, attack or whether he went to school. Singh’s testimony
1
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite only those facts
necessary to decide the petition.
2
about his father escorting him to school when he had to deliver papers or take tests
conflicted with his father’s supplemental affidavit, which stated that he
accompanied Singh to school on a daily basis. Singh’s testimony was also
inconsistent and lacking in details as to who was persecuting him, the Akali Dal
Badal Party or the Bharatiya Janata Party, why they were persecuting him, and the
extent of his political activities in India and the United States. These
inconsistencies directly implicate whether he faced or reasonably feared
persecution for his political beliefs. See Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261,
1264–65 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding that an inconsistency that bore “directly” on
claim of persecution was “a specific and cogent reason [for] adverse credibility
determination”).
Second, the space for “date of issue” was left blank on the birth certificate
Singh presented, he had no government-issued identification documents with his
photograph, and his only identification card was from the Mann party. The IJ
correctly noted that Singh provided no other photographic documents that verified
his identity. His party identification card is not the equivalent of government-
issued identification, and for this reason, the IJ was left in doubt about Singh’s
identity.
3
Finally, the IJ did not err by determining that Singh’s other corroborating
evidence did not rehabilitate his claim because the evidence did little to verify
Singh’s active participation in the Mann community in California. Singh could not
name members of the community, nor the names of their spiritual leaders. Despite
the opportunity to procure corroborating evidence, Singh offered only an affidavit
that stated he was present and photographed at a single rally over the three to four
years he claimed to have been an attendant.
In light of the agency’s adverse credibility determination, Singh failed to
meet his burden of establishing eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the CAT. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49. Singh’s CAT
claim also fails because he did not testify that he was ever tortured, or feared future
torture on return to India, by a government actor or with government acquiescence.
Arrey v. Barr, 916 F.3d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 2019).
PETITION DENIED.
4