Mantej Singh v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANTEJ SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 18-71440
Agency No. A201-228-424
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 14, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Mantej Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the denial
of his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
Against Torture. We deny the petition.
FILED
APR 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 4 --

1. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) did not abuse its discretion in
upholding the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) with respect to Petitioner’s
competency. The IJ determined that no further inquiry into Petitioner’s
competence was required because Petitioner was competent to proceed. On the
day of the merits hearing, Petitioner’s representative orally requested a continuance
to allow for further evaluation of his competency on account of a head injury that
occurred about fifteen years before the hearing. The IJ inquired into Petitioner’s
competence by explaining the proceedings to him, and asking him the purpose of
the hearing, who would be questioning him, and whether he or his attorney had
filed any papers in his case. Petitioner accurately answered all of the IJ’s
questions. Petitioner testified that his head injury causes “a headache at times” and
that he “tend[s] to forget things as well.” But “[t]he mere inability to recall some
events, a common weakness, and other similar mental lapses, are not sufficient to
show mental incompetency.” Salgado v. Sessions, 889 F.3d 982, 989 (9th Cir.
2018). Petitioner was responsive throughout the proceedings. He was also
represented by counsel, and he has demonstrated no unfairness in the manner in
which the proceeding was conducted.
2. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
against Petitioner. Under the “extremely deferential” substantial evidence
2

-- 2 of 4 --

standard, this court must accept the BIA’s findings of fact, including adverse
credibility determinations, as conclusive unless the evidence compels a contrary
conclusion. Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation
omitted); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (“[T]he administrative findings of fact are
conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to
the contrary.”).
There were serious inconsistencies between Petitioner’s statements during
his credible fear interview and his testimony in immigration court, and he has not
offered any compelling explanation for these discrepancies. In his credible fear
interview in 2011, Petitioner claimed no knowledge of Khalistan (the homeland
demanded by the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann (SADM) or Mann Party, a Sikh
political party in which Petitioner claimed membership), could not list three of the
Mann Party’s tenets, said that he had never voted, and claimed that his attackers in
India in 2011 had said nothing to him. During removal proceedings in 2012,
Petitioner applied for relief on the basis of being a Sikh and a member of the Mann
Party. In immigration court in 2017, Petitioner named and described Khalistan
unprompted, explained the Mann Party’s goals, detailed his voting record, and
claimed that his attackers in 2011 had specifically demeaned Sikhs and Singh’s
beliefs. Even granting Petitioner’s memory issues, the record therefore contains
3

-- 3 of 4 --

substantial evidence supporting the IJ’s and BIA’s adverse credibility
determinations here.
3. Petitioner moves to supplement the record on appeal with letters from his
employers that he submitted in relation to an earlier criminal custody issue. We
GRANT the motion but conclude that the letters do not affect our determinations
above.
The petition is DENIED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --