NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 12 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASWINDER SINGH, No. 16-72470
Petitioner, Agency No. A205-941-799
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 7, 2022**
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: WARDLAW, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Jaswinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s
(IJ) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have jurisdiction under 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding.
The agency provided specific and cogent reasons for its adverse credibility
determination. Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1185 (9th Cir. 2016); see
also 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii). Singh’s confusion over whether he had
received multiple death threats, followed by his “sudden” recollection of such
threats after repeated inquiries on cross-examination, supports the IJ’s finding that
Singh was not credible. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th Cir.
2010) (noting that a petitioner’s “inability to consistently describe the underlying
events that gave rise to his fear was an important factor that could be relied upon
by the IJ in making an adverse credibility determination”). In addition, Singh’s
inability to plausibly explain why, contrary to his testimony that he had adhered to
certain tenets of Sikhism his whole life, he appeared clean-shaven, with short hair,
and without a turban in his 2012 passport photo supports the adverse credibility
determination.
2. The BIA properly concluded that, absent Singh’s “credible testimony or
persuasive corroboration,” the remaining evidence in the record was insufficient to
compel a finding of past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution
on a protected ground.
2
3. Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief.
Without more, “generalized evidence of violence . . . is insufficient” to establish
eligibility for CAT relief. Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir.
2010). Further, relations between the Congress Party and the Mann Party, of
which Singh is a member, as well as the status of the Sikh community within India,
have reportedly improved significantly since Singh left India. Thus, the record
does not compel the conclusion that Singh would more likely than not be tortured
following his removal to India.
PETITION DENIED.
3