Balihar Singh; Kulwinder Kaur Khela; Jasdeep Kaur v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALIHAR SINGH; KULWINDER
KAUR KHELA; JASDEEP KAUR,
Petitioners,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-71651
Agency Nos. A089-299-972
A089-299-973
A089-299-974
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 13, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, KOZINSKI, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Balihar Singh, Kulwinder Kaur Khela, and Jasdeep Kaur, natives
and citizens of India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
FILED
APR 18 2016
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).

-- 1 of 3 --

denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse
credibility determination. Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 2013). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination.
The BIA’s determination considered the totality of the circumstances and rested on
“specific and cogent reasons” related to Singh’s demeanor and numerous
inconsistencies in his testimony. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042–43
(9th Cir. 2010). These included inconsistencies between his hearing testimony and
prior statements, internal inconsistencies within his testimony, and inconsistencies
between his testimony and supporting documents, as well as his demeanor. Singh
exhibited a pattern of hesitation and unresponsiveness that prompted the
government’s attorney to state the frequency and duration of the pauses for the
record. In the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the BIA found
not credible, and Singh does not point to any evidence that compels the conclusion
2

-- 2 of 3 --

that it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim
also fails. See id. at 1156–57.
Petition DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --