Baljit Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73375
Agency No. A098-847-983
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 15, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Baljit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and
Convention Against Torture relief. The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge
(“IJ”), who found that Singh was not credible. Singh had failed to provide
FILED
APR 18 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
corroborating evidence, that he should reasonably have been able to obtain, of a
complaint allegedly made to the Punjab State Human Rights Commission in India.
Under the REAL ID Act, an IJ can require a noncitizen to provide evidence to
corroborate testimony unless the noncitizen does not have the evidence and cannot
reasonably obtain it. 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(ii). We may not reverse an IJ’s
determination that corroborating evidence is reasonably available unless the record
compels a finding to the contrary. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4).
Singh contends he could not get a copy of his Human Rights Commission
complaint because he did not have the complaint number. The record shows,
however, that the Commission’s website had a search page, where this information
could be obtained. Neither Singh nor his counsel used this tool despite the IJ’s
repeated suggestions to do so. The record therefore supports the IJ’s finding that if
Singh had filed a complaint, he could reasonably have obtained corroborating
evidence of it, but failed to do so.
The petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --