SINGLA V. GARLAND, No. 23-383 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 8 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMIT SINGLA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 23-383 Agency No. A216-265-782 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted December 6, 2023** San Francisco, California Before: S.R. THOMAS, BRESS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Amit Singla, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) (collectively, “the Agency”) order finding him not credible and denying his * 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). applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here, the BIA cites Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (B.I.A. 1994), and also provides its own review of the evidence and the law, we review both the IJ and the BIA’s decisions. See Ruiz-Colmenares v. Garland, 25 F.4th 742, 748 (9th Cir. 2022). We review legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. Id. We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the Agency’s adverse credibility determination. Considered together, Singla’s inconsistent statements about the number of individuals who threatened him, his travel and employment history, and his lack of familiarity with details about the Indian National Congress Party (“Congress Party”), as well as his exaggerated statements and voluntary return to India before entering the United States, form an adequate basis for the Agency’s adverse credibility determination under the totality of circumstances. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (asylum), 1231(b)(3)(C) (withholding of removal), 1229a(c)(4)(C) (all other relief). In each instance, the Agency referred to “specific instances in the record” to support its determination, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir. 2010), afforded Singla opportunities to explain the inconsistencies in the record, and provided “specific and cogent reason[s] for 2 23-383 rejecting” those explanations. Barseghyan v. Garland, 39 F.4th 1138, 1143 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011), overruled in part on other grounds by Alam v. Garland, 11 F.4th 1133 (9th Cir. 2021)). 2. Substantial evidence also supports the Agency’s finding that Singla failed to rehabilitate his testimony with sufficient corroborating evidence. Mukulumbutu v. Barr, 977 F.3d 924, 927 (9th Cir. 2020). The Agency reasonably discounted the value of the evidence Singla submitted to show past harm or membership in the Congress Party because the documents were either unreliable or of limited probative value. See Lin v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 1158, 1162 (9th Cir. 2006) (stating the record must include evidence of a “legitimate basis to distrust the documents”); Mukulumbutu, 977 F.3d at 927 (affording affidavit “limited weight” because declarant was an interested party and unavailable for cross-examination). Because the Agency found Singla not credible, and substantial evidence supports that conclusion, it also did not need to provide Singla with notice or an opportunity to supplement the record. Yali Wang v. Sessions, 861 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2017). 3. Absent credible testimony or sufficient corroborating evidence, substantial evidence supports the Agency’s denial of asylum and withholding of removal because Singla failed to establish past or feared future persecution on account of his political opinion. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(i) (asylum), 3 23-383 1231(b)(3)(A) (withholding of removal). 4. Finally, substantial evidence supports the Agency’s denial of CAT protection because Singla failed to establish that it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with the acquiescence of the Indian government. See 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16(c)(2), 1208.18(a)(1). Although the submitted country conditions reports and news articles show potential political violence in India, they do not establish that Singla faces a particularized risk of torture in the country. See Lalayan v. Garland, 4 F.4th 822, 840 (9th Cir. 2021). PETITION DENIED. 4 23-383
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
