United States v. 2020-06-16 | 19-71285 | SUKHCHAIN SINGH V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SUKHCHAIN SINGH,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 19-71285

Agency No. A205-733-689

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 11, 2020
**

San Francisco, California

Before: MILLER and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges, and RAYES,
***
District
Judge.

Petitioner Sukhchain Singh, an Indian national, entered the United States
without valid entry documentation and was subsequently apprehended by

*
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).

***
The Honorable Douglas L. Rayes, United States District Judge for the
District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
FILED

JUN 16 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2
immigration officials. Singh was charged as removable but sought asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). After a full merits hearing, the Immigration Judge (IJ) found Singh not
credible based on various inconsistencies in the record. Lacking credible
testimonial evidence and sufficient other record evidence, the IJ determined Singh
was ineligible for immigration relief and subject to removal. The Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s removal order. Singh petitions for
review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) and deny the petition for
review.
Singh claims the BIA erred by (1) relying on mere omissions of details and
minor discrepancies in an otherwise “entirely consistent” claim, (2) failing to
provide Singh an opportunity to explain the inconsistencies or consider his
plausible explanations, and (3) “cherry-picking” the evidence without reviewing
the totality of the circumstances. A review of the record reveals, however, that
Singh’s written documentation and oral statements directly conflict, and that he
was given a chance to explain the discrepancies but his explanations were found to
be unreasonable and unconvincing. Both the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility
rulings reflect a comprehensive review of the record, see Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1044–45 (9th Cir. 2010), and the evidence does not compel a contrary

3
conclusion than that reached by the agency, see Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii), 1231(b)(3)(C), 1252(b)(4).
Because both the asylum and withholding claims rely on Singh’s non-
credible testimony to establish past persecution and well-founded fear of
persecution, we deny review of those claims. Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156. Moreover,
without credible testimony providing evidence of past torture, Singh’s CAT claim
relies solely on the remaining record evidence regarding conditions in India. See
Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048–49 (citations omitted). This evidence does not compel
the conclusion that it is more likely than not Singh will suffer torture on return to
India. See id.; 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(b)(1)(iii); Hamoui v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 821, 827
(9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that the “more likely than not” standard requires a
greater than fifty percent chance). Therefore, Singh’s CAT claim fails as well.
1

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

1
Petitioner’s Motion for Stay of Removal [Dkt. 1] is denied as moot.