IQBAL SINGH; KULWINDER KAUR, AKA Kulwinder Singh v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IQBAL SINGH; KULWINDER KAUR,
AKA Kulwinder Singh,
Petitioners,
v.
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 14-71433
Agency Nos. A088-431-358
A072-404-592
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 11, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, SILER,*** and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Iqbal Singh and Kulwinder Kaur, natives and citizens of India, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order dismissing their appeal
* 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).
*** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
FILED
MAR 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
from an immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying their applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).1
We review for “substantial evidence and will uphold a denial supported by
reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a
whole.” Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the Board’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies in the record regarding the nature of Singh’s detentions
and subsequent treatments. Taken together, all the inconsistencies identified by the
Board support finding that Singh was not credible. See also Shrestha v. Holder,
590 F.3d 1034, 1042 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he REAL ID Act now permits an IJ
to base an adverse credibility determination on any inconsistency ‘without regard
to whether an inconsistency . . . goes to the heart of the applicant’s claim.’”
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii))). Substantial evidence also supports the
Board’s finding that Singh’s corroborative evidence did not 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). Singh’s explanations do not compel a contrary
conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the
1 Kaur is Singh’s wife and a derivate of his application.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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).
Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same evidence the
Board found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel a finding that
it is more likely than not that Singh would be tortured if returned to India. See
Almaghzar v. Gonzales, 457 F.3d 915, 922–23 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --