Jaskamaljit Singh v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASKAMALJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 17-72687
Agency No. A206-454-188
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Jaskamaljit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
* 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
JAN 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-72687
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review factual
findings for substantial evidence, 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 deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility determination based on
an omission concerning whether he lost consciousness after being attacked, and an
inconsistency and implausibility regarding his attackers’ references to his brother
during the attacks. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable
under “the totality of circumstances”); see also Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969,
973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (omissions supported adverse credibility determination
where they did not constitute “a mere lack of detail” but “went to the core of his
alleged fear”). Singh’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Li
v. Garland, 13 F.4th 954, 961 (9th Cir. 2021) (IJ not compelled to accept
explanations for discrepancies). Substantial evidence also supports the finding that
without credible testimony, Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal. See Garcia v. Holder, 749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014)
(applicant’s documentary evidence insufficient to independently support claim).
Thus, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (failure to satisfy lower asylum
standard results in failure to satisfy withholding standard).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-72687
We do not address Singh’s contentions as to the merits of his asylum and
withholding claims because the BIA did not deny relief on those grounds. See
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (review limited
to the grounds relied on by the BIA).
Substantial evidence supports the denial of Singh’s CAT claim because it
was based on the same evidence found not credible, and Singh does not point to
any other evidence in the record 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.
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --