Sandeep Singh v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANDEEP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-214
Agency No. A216-578-955
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 12, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: S.R. THOMAS and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,***
District Judge.
On August 15, 2018, Sandeep Singh, a native and citizen of India, applied for
asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
* 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 Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
FILED
APR 14 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Case: 22-214, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 27.1, Page 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Torture (“CAT”). The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) assigned to Singh’s case denied his
application, basing that decision on the IJ’s determination that Singh was not
credible. Singh appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which
affirmed the IJ’s decision and dismissed his appeal. Singh then petitioned this Court
for review. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
“Where, as here, the BIA agrees with and incorporates specific findings of the
IJ while adding its own reasoning, we review both decisions.” Bhattarai v. Lynch,
835 F.3d 1037, 1042 (9th Cir. 2016). We review factual findings for substantial
evidence. Id. To reverse a credibility determination in particular, “we must find that
the evidence not only supports [a contrary] conclusion, but compels it.” Rizk v.
Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2011) (alteration in original) (quoting INS v.
Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992)), overruled in part on other grounds
by Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135–37 (9th Cir. 2021).
An adverse credibility determination may be based on “all relevant factors,”
including “the consistency between the applicant’s . . . written and oral statements”
and “the consistency of such statements with other evidence of record . . . .” 18
U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(C). Regardless of the factors relied upon by the IJ, the IJ must
provide “specific and cogent reasons” for the adverse credibility finding. Shrestha
v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2010).
Here, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was based on inconsistencies
Case: 22-214, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 27.1, Page 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
between Singh’s in-court testimony and other evidence. Those inconsistencies
concerned the location of an injury that Singh claimed to have suffered during a
knife attack in 2017. In court, Singh testified that he had been stabbed in his left
hand. However, in a sworn declaration, Singh wrote that he had been stabbed in his
shoulder. Additionally, Singh’s father—who was present at the hospital where Singh
was treated for his knife wound—also asserted, in an affidavit, that Singh had been
stabbed in the shoulder. When Singh was given an opportunity to explain these
apparent inconsistencies, he provided an explanation that the IJ found to be
unconvincing.1 The IJ then determined that these unexplained inconsistencies with
respect to Singh’s injury cast doubt on the entirety of Singh’s testimony. Manes v.
Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 2017) (the BIA may give “substantial
weight” to inconsistencies that bear directly on the applicant’s claims).
As the IJ offered specific, cogent reasons for disbelieving Singh’s testimony
and rejecting his explanations for the inconsistency, the IJ’s adverse credibility
determination is supported by substantial evidence, and the BIA did not err in
dismissing Singh’s appeal. Accordingly, Singh’s petition for review is DENIED.
1 The IJ also confirmed with the court’s Punjabi interpreter that the
Punjabi language has different words for “shoulder,” “hand,” and “arm.” While
Singh asserts that it was “unreasonable” and “erroneous” for the IJ to rely on the
court interpreter for information about Punjabi, he provides no specific reasons to
doubt the interpreter’s competence.
Case: 22-214, 04/14/2023, DktEntry: 27.1, Page 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --