Jascharan Singh; Rajinder Kaur v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASCHARAN SINGH; RAJINDER KAUR,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-603
Agency Nos.
A075-016-843
A075-251-103
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 20, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, CALLAHAN, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Jascharan Singh and Rajinder Kaur, natives and citizens of
India, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of
their appeal from a final order of removal. The BIA’s order terminated their
asylum status and held them removable under § 208(c)(2)(A) of the Immigration
* 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
APR 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-603
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1158(c)(2)(A), for a showing of fraud in Singh’s
asylum application. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.24(f). In its order, the BIA upheld the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) adverse credibility determination and concluded that
Singh was not eligible for asylum at the time he was granted it. We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Guo v.
Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir. 2018), we deny the petition.
Asylum may be terminated upon a showing of fraud in Singh’s asylum
application such that he was not eligible for asylum at the time it was granted.
8 C.F.R. § 1208.24(f). Here, Singh admits his first application for asylum was
fraudulent. He argues only that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination and subsequently concluding that Singh was not eligible
for asylum at the time it was granted. We disagree.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination. We
treat the BIA’s credibility findings as “conclusive unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Flores Molina v.
Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 632 (9th Cir. 2022). Singh admits he knowingly lied on
his first application for asylum in 1993, filing it under a false name and birth date.
He also admits the application contained several false statements like that he was
part of a student political organization, that his house was burned down by a mob,
and that his family members were arrested and raped by local police in 1992.
These were not minor inconsistencies, as Singh contends. Rather, they were
deliberate fabrications that “cast[] doubt on [Singh’s] credibility and the rest of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-603
his story.” Singh v. Holder, 643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011). These false
statements, along with Singh’s several other misrepresentations and critical
omissions throughout various hearings and applications for asylum, constitute
substantial evidence supporting the BIA’s decision. See id.
Substantial evidence therefore supports the BIA’s decision that Singh did
not qualify for asylum at the time it was granted. And because Kaur’s asylum
status derived from Singh’s, the BIA did not err in terminating Kaur’s asylum
status either. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(d).
PETITION DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --