Jaspal Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr.

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 21 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASPAL SINGH, No. 09-72039

Petitioner, Agency No. A078-046-272

v.

MEMORANDUM*

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Argued and Submitted October 11, 2013 San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Jaspal Singh (also known as Sukhwinder Singh), a native and citizen of

India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision

affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his asylum, withholding of

removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims. We deny the petition for

review.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision and cited to Matter

of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), we review the decision of the IJ

as the BIA’s decision. Abebe v.…

MEMORANDUM *

Jaspal Singh (also known as Sukhwinder Singh), a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims. We deny the petition for review.

Because the BIA adopted and affirmed the IJ’s decision and cited to Matter of Burbano, 20 I. & N. Dec. 872, 874 (BIA 1994), we review the decision of the IJ as the BIA’s decision. Abebe v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 1037, 1040 (9th Cir.2005). We review the agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility determinations, for substantial evidence, and we uphold the findings unless the record compels a contrary result. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b)(4)(B); Monjaraz-Munoz v. INS, 327 F.3d 892, 895 (9th Cir.2003).

The pre-REAL ID Act standards for adverse credibility determinations govern this petition. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083 , 1087 n. 2 (9th Cir.2011). “As long as one of the identified grounds underlying a negative credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence and goes to the heart of the claims of persecution, we are bound to accept the negative…

dissenting:

Although it may seem like “common sense” to assume that Singh would recall and be able to explain his duties as sar-panch or the goals of the Akali Dal Mann party if he actually had held that position or was a member of that party, Jibril v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1129, 1135 (9th Cir. 2005), our prior decisions have held that similar assumptions by an immigration judge (IJ) are improper speculation and conjecture. See, e.g., Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1245 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that the IJ’s assumption that the petitioner should understand Haitian politics, given his claim that he was a high ranking member of the president’s political party, was improper speculation and could not support an adverse credibility determination).

While Singh’s testimony regarding his political activities was vague and unresponsive, we deem such problems to constitute substantial evidence only when there is “obvious evasiveness,” such as when a petitioner cannot “explain [an] all-too-apparent contradiction in his testimony.” Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1256-57 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). There were no similar glaring contradictions in Singh’s…