Piara Singh Gill v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PIARA SINGH GILL,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, U.S. Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-783
Agency No.
A073-426-235
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Piara Singh Gill (“Gill”) seeks review of a decision of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from a decision by an
immigration judge denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review Gill’s ineffective assistance claim de novo, Santiago-
* 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).
FILED
APR 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011), and the BIA’s adverse
credibility determinations for substantial evidence. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861
F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir. 2017). We deny the petition.
1. Gill’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is meritless. Gill
argues that he was denied due process because his prior attorney withdrew his
INA § 237(a)(1)(H) fraud waiver and his federal civil suit against his will and to
the detriment of his asylum claim. Nothing in the record suggests that decisions
made by Gill’s counsel were so “egregious” that they “effectively prevented
[Gill] from pursuing relief.” Hernandez-Ortiz v. Garland, 32 F.4th 794, 802 (9th
Cir. 2022). To the contrary, the record reveals that Gill had numerous chances to
weigh whether to pursue a § 237(a)(1)(H) waiver or to proceed with his asylum
claim. And Gill cannot stake his ineffective assistance claim on his withdrawn
civil suit, because he was represented by different counsel in that proceeding.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination. We treat the BIA’s credibility findings as “conclusive unless any
reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Flores
Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022). At his 2018 asylum
hearing, Gill offered contradictory explanations of why he conceded that his 1996
application was fraudulent. After first stating that he was coerced into doing so,
Gill subsequently attributed his concession of fraud to a “sudden[] recollect[ion],”
fear, confusion, and his “not thinking right.” Later, he acknowledged that he
confessed to the fraud only after the asylum officer explained that if the facts in

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the application were true, he would be ineligible for asylum because of his
material support for terrorism. Under the “totality of the circumstances,” Manes
v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263 (9th Cir. 2017), the record does not compel the
conclusion that Gill’s testimony was credible.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --