Malkit Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MALKIT SINGH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-71849
Agency No. A096-166-396
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 4, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: TALLMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MURPHY, District
Judge.***
FILED
FEB 06 2015
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 Stephen Joseph Murphy, III, United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
1

-- 1 of 3 --

Malkit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial
of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Singh additionally asserts the incompetency of
his interpreter denied him a full and fair hearing in violation of his right to due
process. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 to review this pre-REAL ID Act
petition.
1. The specific and unreconciled inconsistencies as to Singh’s doctor, his
whereabouts during the August 2002 police search, and the errors in the hospital
report constitute substantial evidence related to events that form the basis of Singh’s
petition. Consequently, we are required to uphold the agency’s adverse credibility
finding. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004) (“So long as one of the
identified grounds is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of [the
petitioner’s] claim of persecution, we are bound to accept the IJ’s adverse credibility
finding.” (internal quotation omitted)). 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).
2. Failure to establish eligibility for asylum, however, does not necessarily doom
an application for relief under the CAT. See Kamalthas v. I.N.S., 251 F.3d 1279,
2

-- 2 of 3 --

1282–83 (9th Cir. 2001). But Singh’s CAT claims are based on the same statements
and evidence the IJ found not credible. Reports of abuse in India do not compel the
conclusion Singh would likely be tortured if returned. Because we affirm the IJ’s
adverse credibility determination, we similarly affirm the rejection of Singh’s claim
for CAT protection. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156–57.
3. To succeed on an incompetent translation claim, a petitioner must show “a
better translation would have made a difference in the outcome of the hearing.” Perez-
Lastor v. I.N.S., 208 F.3d 773, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation omitted). Singh
identifies two translation errors—regarding his political organization and a specific
detail of his abuse—that he claims caused confusion and led the IJ to question the
credibility of his testimony. The translation errors, however, did not form the basis of
the agency’s adverse credibility determination, and the errors did not prevent Singh
from presenting relevant evidence. Even acknowledging the flaws in translation, there
was no prejudice that affected the outcome. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139,
1143–44 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION DENIED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --