Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Singh v. Holder
Citation: 356 F. App'x 71Docket: No. 06-70118
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; November 29, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Manjinder Singh, a citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision which dismissed his appeal from an immigration judge's (IJ) ruling that denied his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The review is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and is conducted for substantial evidence. The petition is partly denied and partly dismissed. Singh's asylum claim fails because he did not demonstrate changed or extraordinary circumstances to justify his late application, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4)(5). The IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence; Singh provided false information regarding his entry date into the U.S. and only admitted to the lie when confronted. This dishonesty undermines his credibility, which is crucial for establishing key elements of the asylum application. Consequently, Singh's withholding of removal claim also fails due to a lack of credible testimony. Singh's CAT claim relies on the same testimony deemed not credible by the IJ, and he has not provided additional evidence to support the assertion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. As for Singh's claim for voluntary departure, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary denial. Additionally, Singh's due process challenge is dismissed because he did not exhaust this issue before the BIA. The petition for review is denied in part and dismissed in part, and this disposition is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.