NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IQBAL SINGH, No. 17-70967
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-935-302
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Iqbal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the
REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies between Singh’s declaration and testimony regarding
police actions during an alleged April 2012 arrest, discrepancies between Singh’s
testimony and the letter of support from the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann party,
inconsistencies regarding whether Singh had any problems with members of an
opposing political party between April 2012 and February 2013, and Singh’s
demeanor during his testimony. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”); see also Jin v. Holder, 748 F.3d
959, 965 (9th Cir. 2014) (substantial evidence supported adverse credibility finding
based on demeanor during testimony because “the record amply demonstrates a
pattern of evasive responses”). Singh’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the
absence of credible testimony, in this case, Singh’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the record does
2 17-70967
not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to
India. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
We reject as unsupported by the record Singh’s contentions that the agency
ignored arguments or otherwise erred in its analysis of Singh’s credibility and CAT
claim.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 17-70967