Narjit Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NARJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-72177
Agency No. A070-541-436
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 11, 2014 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FISHER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Narjit Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his claims for
asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). We deny the petition.
FILED
DEC 15 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

The BIA’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
evidence. See Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 2013); Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). Singh testified inconsistently regarding
when he first encountered problems with the police because of his support for
Shiromani Akali Dal Mann, first testifying the problems began in 1990 but later
testifying that they began in 1987. Singh also testified inconsistently regarding the
reasons for his 1991 arrest. In his asylum application, he asserted that he was
arrested for participating in a militant attack in which police officers were killed.
At his hearing before the IJ, he testified that he was arrested for hosting militants
and supplying them with food. He also provided inconsistent testimony regarding
his 1990 detention. In his asylum application, he asserted that both he and his
father had been hung upside down, but he omitted that detail at his hearing before
the IJ, even when pressed. These inconsistencies go to the heart of Singh’s asylum
claim and therefore support the adverse credibility determination. See Singh v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1108-09 (9th Cir. 2006).
Singh argues that the BIA erred by citing his failure to offer corroborating
evidence as additional support for its adverse credibility determination. We agree.
Under Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2000), “[t]he petitioner must be
given an opportunity at his IJ hearing to explain his failure to produce material
2

-- 2 of 3 --

corroborating evidence.” That did not occur here. This error, however, is not
alone sufficient to set aside the adverse credibility finding. See Wang v. INS, 352
F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003) (“So long as one of the identified grounds is
supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [Singh’s] claim of
persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility finding.”).
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --