Swarn Singh v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SWARN SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-1385
Agency No.
A216-629-109
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted August 24, 2023**
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Swarn Singh, a native and citizen of India, timely petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal of an
immigration judge’s decision that denied his applications for asylum, withholding
* 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
AUG 28 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-1385
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We
review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, meaning that we must
uphold the agency’s determination unless the evidence compels a contrary
conclusion. Iman v. Barr, 972 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the
petition.
1. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. The record contains numerous inconsistencies about the details of
the attacks that Petitioner allegedly experienced in India and the circumstances
surrounding his reports to law enforcement. The agency may rely on any
inconsistency in making an adverse credibility determination as long as the
“totality of the circumstances,” Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133, 1135 (9th Cir.
2021) (en banc), establishes that the petitioner is not credible, see Li v. Garland, 13
F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding that “even minor inconsistencies may have
a legitimate impact on a petitioner’s credibility”). Although Petitioner argues that
he explained many of the inconsistencies noted by the agency, Petitioner’s
explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d
1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000) (stating that a petitioner’s plausible explanation for an
inconsistency does not necessarily compel a determination contrary to the agency’s
adverse credibility finding).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-1385
2. Further, substantial evidence supports the decision that, without credible
testimony, Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum or withholding of
removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that the
petitioner’s documentary evidence was insufficient to support her claim
independent of her testimony). Thus, Petitioner’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)
(noting that the failure to satisfy the standard for asylum results in a failure to
satisfy the standard for withholding of removal).
3. Finally, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of protection
under CAT. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he would more likely than not be
tortured with the consent or acquiescence of the Indian government. See Garcia-
Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1033 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating standard). Because
Petitioner’s claim rested on the same testimony that the agency permissibly found
to be not credible, and the documentary evidence does not compel a contrary
result, his claim for CAT protection fails. Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156–57.
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --