Charanjeet Singh v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARANJEET SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 16-70351
Agency No. A087-851-556
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Charanjeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
* 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
JUN 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 16-70351
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings,
applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the
REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We
review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings.
Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on lack of detail as to the motivation for Singh’s political activities, the basic
structure of Singh’s political party, and the role of Singh’s political opponent in the
1984 riots. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination
reasonable under the “totality of the circumstances”). Singh’s explanations do not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir.
2000). Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s finding that Singh did not
present corroborative evidence that would otherwise establish his eligibility for
relief. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (petitioner’s
documentary evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate credibility or independently
support claim). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 16-70351
Singh’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due process or
otherwise erred in its analysis of his claims fail as unsupported by the record. See
Lata, 204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a
due process claim).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim
because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and he does not
point to any other record evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely
than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the
government if returned to India. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --