AVTAR SINGH V. ERIC HOLDER, JR., No. 10-71645 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 12 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AVTAR SINGH, No. 10-71645 Petitioner, Agency No. A070-530-104 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 June 4, 2014 Seattle, Washington Before: McKEOWN and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and ROTHSTEIN, Senior District Judge.** Avtar Singh petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the Immigration Judge s (IJ) denial of asylum, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation. Page 2 of 2 withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. He appeals only the denial of his asylum claim. The IJ s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. Singh testified inconsistently about whether he was engaged in any political activity after his arrest in 1991, as well as the nature and scope of any such political activity. He was also unable to adequately explain the apparent inconsistency in his whereabouts during the nine-month period following his arrest. As the BIA correctly concluded, these inconsistencies about his whereabouts and whether he engaged in further political activities after his arrest go to the heart of his claim. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001). On the basis of this record, a reasonable factfinder would not be compelled to conclude that Singh testified consistently and credibly regarding events central to his asylum claim. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 n.1 (1992). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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.
