Devinder Singh v. ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEVINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ROBERT M. WILKINSON, Acting
Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 15-72602
Agency No. A200-941-154
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 2, 2021**
Seattle, Washington
Before: GRABER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Devinder Singh timely seeks review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ ("BIA") dismissal of his appeal of an immigration judge’s ("IJ") denial of
relief from removal. Reviewing the agency’s factual findings for substantial
evidence, Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 925 (9th Cir. 2020), we deny the
* 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
FEB 4 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
During the merits hearing, Petitioner testified that he fled India because his father,
who held the same political views as Petitioner, had been beaten so badly that he
died and Petitioner feared the same fate. But during his credible-fear interview,
given under oath and with the assistance of an interpreter, Petitioner stated that he
did not know of anyone in his political party who had been harmed, and he did not
mention his father’s death. See Mukulumbutu, 977 F.3d at 926 (holding that a
credible-fear interview may be considered when there are "sufficient indicia of
reliability," such as when "the interviews were conducted under oath, with
contemporaneous notes containing the questions asked, and transcribed . . . with
the aid of an interpreter"). Contrary to Petitioner’s inexplicable assertion on
appeal, the typed, coherent notes from the credible-fear interview are neither
"unreadable" nor "illegible." Neither the BIA nor the IJ was required to believe
Petitioner’s confusing explanation for why, during the credible-fear interview, he
did not mention his father’s death. Moreover, the agency permissibly concluded
that the documentary evidence cast doubt on Petitioner’s claim about the beating of
his father.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s conclusion that, without credible
testimony, the remaining evidence in the record is insufficient to establish

-- 2 of 3 --

3
eligibility for asylum, humanitarian asylum, withholding of removal, or relief
under the Convention Against Torture.
Petition DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --