RANJIT SINGH, AKA Ranjit Seahon Singh v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANJIT SINGH, AKA Ranjit Seahon
Singh,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 19-71351
Agency No. A205-243-523
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Ranjit 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 and withholding of removal. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence 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
NOV 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-71351
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. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.
2004). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Singh’s non-responsive and evasive testimony, his demeanor, and
inconsistencies regarding his knowledge of his father’s death. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of
circumstances”). Singh’s contentions that he was denied an opportunity to explain
any discrepancies fail, see Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011)
(holding that the opportunity to explain may be provided through direct
examination), and his explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion, see
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency not required to
accept explanations for inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, in
this case, 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 19-71351
Singh’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due process fail.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on
a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --