NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DHARMINDER SINGH, No. 16-73414
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-294-119
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 5, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: WARDLAW and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and PREGERSON,***
District Judge.
Dharminder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of his appeal of 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 Dean D. Pregerson, United States District Judge for
the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture. We deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh
was not a credible witness. Both the BIA and IJ identified numerous
inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony in his removal hearing, on the one
hand, and his declaration and the interview notes from his credible fear interview,
on the other. The inconsistencies were not trivial. They related to the appearance of
Singh’s alleged attackers, the threats they made to him, and the injuries he suffered
at their hands—all issues central to his claim. Singh was not able to account for
these discrepancies other than to say he had forgotten things. In light of these
inconsistencies, the record does not compel the conclusion that Singh was a
credible witness.
Although the adverse credibility determination was supported by substantial
evidence, the IJ’s findings as to Singh’s demeanor do not support the adverse
credibility determination. The IJ found generally that Singh was “nonresponsive”
and “evasive” on cross-examination. An IJ’s demeanor findings should
“specifically and cogently refer to [an] aspect of [the petitioner’s] demeanor, a
term which we have described as including the expression of his countenance, how
he sits or stands, whether he is inordinately nervous, his coloration during critical
examination, the modulation or pace of his speech and other non-verbal
2
communication.” Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 686 (9th Cir. 2003)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, the IJ did not identify any
specific instances of Singh’s evasiveness or nonresponsiveness, nor did he identify
specific nonverbal behaviors that Singh displayed. The IJ’s demeanor findings
therefore do not support the adverse credibility determination. Nonetheless, even
without the demeanor findings, the inconsistencies identified by the BIA and IJ
provided substantial evidence that Singh was not credible.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s and IJ’s determination that
the documentary evidence alone did not establish Singh’s eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal. The BIA and IJ reasonably concluded that the letters from
a political party leader and another party member did not support Singh’s claim
because they either did not detail the alleged attacks on Singh or gave details
inconsistent with those Singh gave. Additionally, given Singh’s noncredible
testimony, the record does not compel the conclusion that the letters from his
family members and friends were sufficient alone to establish his eligibility for
asylum and withholding of removal.
3. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Singh
failed to establish his eligibility for relief under the Convention Against Torture.
Singh does not point to any specific evidence in the record that contradicts the IJ’s
conclusion that there was “little evidence present to suggest that mistreatment of
3
Sikhs or SADM members in India in particular rises to the level of torture,” or that
Singh “would otherwise be specifically targeted for it.”
PETITION DENIED.
4