Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Harpinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitioned the Ninth Circuit to review a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing his appeal from an Immigration Judge's denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. His claims rested on two attacks, one in October 2018 and one in January 2019, and on his account of who the attackers were and why they targeted him. The panel decided the case without oral argument in an unpublished memorandum disposition, which is not precedent except as allowed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Because the Board expressed agreement with the Immigration Judge's reasoning, the court reviewed both decisions. It reviewed factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence and would reverse only if any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to reach the contrary conclusion. The Board had expressly declined to rely on the Immigration Judge's finding that Singh's medical documentation conflicted with his second declaration, because Singh was not given a chance to explain the discrepancy. The court therefore evaluated only the portions of the credibility finding on which the Board relied.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Circuit denied the petition. It held that substantial evidence supported the adverse credibility determination, which was dispositive of the asylum and withholding claims. First, Singh gave conflicting accounts of the October 2018 attack. His hearing testimony and first declaration described being slapped, punched and having his hair pulled, and he testified he was not beaten with sticks. His second declaration and a police report he submitted described a beating with sticks. The Board found the discrepancy material because it went to the severity of the harm claimed. The Immigration Judge gave Singh a chance to explain and gave specific, cogent reasons for rejecting his explanations. The second declaration bore his signature and counsel's certification that it was read back to him in Punjabi, and the police report was originally written in Punjabi, so it could not reflect a mistranslation by an interpreter.
Second, Singh's declarations conflicted with an affidavit from a claimed eyewitness about which attack the witness helped with, where the witness was, and how Singh was beaten. Third, his second declaration said he recognized one attacker from the first attack even though he testified the attackers' faces were covered both times. The Immigration Judge reasonably found that noting a familiar voice is significantly removed from unequivocal recognition. The agency need not accept even a plausible explanation. The court also held the agency could treat Singh's omission of Khalistan from his credible fear interview, asylum application and declarations as one factor among several, while recognizing that omissions are less probative than contradictions. It did not rely on the inconsistency about the attackers' political identity.
On CAT relief, the court rejected the argument that the Board held country conditions evidence can never establish eligibility. The Board held that where the only support is discredited testimony and general reports of violence, the reports alone generally do not show a clear probability of torture. The record did not compel the conclusion that Singh would more likely than not be tortured in India. The court also denied his motion for a stay of removal and lifted the temporary stay.
Key Takeaways
- An inconsistency about the severity of claimed harm, such as being slapped and punched versus beaten with sticks, can carry substantial weight in an adverse credibility finding.
- An adjudicator may reject an applicant's explanation, such as a mistranslation or a declaration he did not write, when the record shows a signature, a counsel certification of read-back, or a document originally written in his native language.
- Omissions are weighed in the totality of the circumstances and may be one factor among several, even though they are less probative than direct contradictions.
- General country conditions reports alone generally do not establish a clear probability of torture for the individual applicant, particularly when the testimony is discredited.
- The court did not reach arguments not presented to the Board, including claims about the opportunity to explain discrepancies or supply corroboration, because of the exhaustion requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
Why It Matters
This unpublished memorandum applies settled Ninth Circuit authority and has no precedential weight beyond Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. It illustrates how deferential substantial evidence review is when an adverse credibility finding rests on several independent grounds, so that the court need not rely on every ground the agency identified.
It also shows the practical cost of failing to exhaust arguments before the Board. The removal order stands and the temporary stay is lifted. The decision does not decide whether Singh's account was true, only that the record did not compel a contrary finding.