FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 28 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASVIR SINGH-GARCHA, No. 14-71628
Petitioner, Agency No. A094-792-235
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 13, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, REINHARDT, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Singh-Garcha, a citizen of India, seeks relief from a Board of
Immigration Appeals order (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) decision which denied his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 8 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
§ 1252 (2012) gives us jurisdiction over his timely request. We review his petition
pursuant to the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), and we deny it.
I
Singh-Garcha’s failure to prevail in his hearing before an IJ resulted in the
main from the IJ’s “serious misgivings about Petitioner’s credibility.” Confronted
by “wildly different versions between Petitioner and . . . Border Patrol agent Daniel
Serna regarding [Singh-Garcha’s] interview,” the IJ concluded that the “agent’s
record is more reliable than Petitioner’s testimony.” She rejected his excuse that
the agent did not conduct the interview in Petitioner’s native language.
The IJ explained in detail the reasons for her conclusion regarding his lack
of credibility, highlighting his admission of falsehoods to the Border Patrol. The
BIA also focused on Petitioner’s admitted material fabrications, which included
“misrepresentations regarding his identity such as his complete name and date of
birth and his travels prior to entering the United States . . . .”
Accordingly, the IJ concluded based on credibility deficiencies that
“Petitioner has not carried his burden to produce credible testimony in support of
his claim . . . .” “Thus, neither asylum not [sic] withholding of removal can be
granted.” The BIA agreed with the IJ’s decision and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal.
II
2
If substantial evidence and specific cogent reasoning supports one of the
grounds for an adverse credibility finding, we are “bound to accept” that finding.
Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1052 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, the grounds that the
BIA cites suffice for an adverse credibility determination. Accordingly,
Petitioner’s remaining arguments are irrelevant. Our conclusion disposes of his
request for asylum and withholding of deportation.
III
Noting that “[e]ven where a trier of fact has made an adverse credibility
finding, an applicant for protection under CAT is entitled to have evidence of
gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country of removal apart
from [his] asylum and withholding claims,” the IJ nevertheless concluded that
Singh-Garcha had failed to meet “his burden of proof to show that it is more likely
than not that he would be tortured by the India government if he were returned to
India.” The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of CAT protection. We agree with the IJ
and the BIA.
Accordingly, we deny Petitioner’s petition in its entirety.
Petition DENIED.
3