United States v. 2020-09-09 | 17-72777 | JASPAL SINGH V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASPAL SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72777
Agency No. A206-103-352
MEMORANDUM
*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 4, 2020
**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and CALDWELL,
***
District
Judge.

FILED
SEP 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*
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 Karen K. Caldwell, United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order
affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his claims for asylum, withholding
of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for
substantial evidence, Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 2013), and we
affirm.
The agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
evidence. As the BIA noted, the IJ described a number of discrepancies in Singh’s
testimony, including a very significant inconsistency regarding one of the physical
attacks on which his asylum claim was based. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1046–47 (9th Cir. 2010) (inconsistencies which go to the heart of the claim must be
given great weight). Singh testified he had been attacked by thugs from an opposing
political party, including an individual named Sukha Kahlon, but the government
introduced evidence on cross-examination that Kahlon was in jail at the time of the
alleged attack. Singh was unable to provide an explanation beyond speculation that
Kahlon “somehow escaped the jail,” or the police could have let him out or brought
him there and stayed with him while he threatened Singh. The IJ considered but did
not accept this explanation. See Hui Pan v. Holder, 737 F.3d 921, 930 (9th Cir 2013)
(IJ not required to accept explanation; applicant must demonstrate evidence compels
finding credible).
2

Without credible testimony, Singh’s claims for asylum and withholding of
removal fail. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). Substantial
evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim, as there is no
evidence it is more likely than not that Singh would be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of the government if returned to India. 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2); Yali
Wang. v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017).
PETITION DENIED.
3