Iqbal Singh Purewal v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IQBAL SINGH PUREWAL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-70516
Agency No. A089-070-641
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 5, 2014 **
Portland, Oregon
Before: TROTT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK, Senior District
Judge.***
Iqbal Singh Purewal appeals the denial of his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention
FILED
MAR 10 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 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 Frederic Block, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

Against Torture (“CAT”). The Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denied the
application because Purewal’s testimony was not credible and Purewal failed to
meet his burden of proof. We deny the petition.
Purewal first challenges the BIA’s conclusion that his asylum claim was
time barred because Purewal did not prove that he filed for asylum within one year
of arriving in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(B). The BIA reached
that conclusion after finding that Purewal’s testimony regarding his date of entry
was not credible and that his sole piece of corroborating evidence was inadequate.
Because Purewal challenges the BIA’s resolution of a factual dispute regarding
Purewal’s date of entry, this court does not have jurisdiction to review that
conclusion. See id. § 1158(a)(3); Sumolang v. Holder, 723 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th
Cir. 2013).
Purewal next contests the BIA’s adverse credibility determination. But
substantial evidence, including the IJ’s observations of Purewal’s demeanor, the
inconsistencies between Purewal’s testimony and his application, and Purewal’s
failure to present reasonably available corroborating evidence, supports that
determination. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(b)(4)(B), 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C),
1229a(c)(4)(C); Chawla v. Holder, 599 F.3d 998, 1001 (9th Cir. 2010).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, Purewal argues that the BIA erred by failing to independently
analyze his CAT claim, including the country reports he presented to support that
claim. Although the BIA erred by not stating that it considered the country reports
(or at least that it considered all of the evidence, Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 771
(9th Cir. 2011)), that omission does not warrant granting the petition. Indeed, the
IJ concluded that the country reports undermined Purewal’s claim, see Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010) (this court may look to the IJ’s
decision if the BIA’s analysis was “confined to a simple statement of a
conclusion”) (internal quotation marks omitted), and substantial evidence supports
that finding.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --