NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 16 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RANJIT SINGH, AKA Ranjit Seahon No. 19-71351 Singh,

Agency No. A205-243-523

Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the

*

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). agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Singh’s non-responsive and evasive testimony, his demeanor, and inconsistencies regarding his knowledge of his father’s death. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”). Singh’s contentions that he was denied an opportunity to explain any discrepancies fail, see Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the opportunity to explain may be provided through direct examination), and his explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion, see Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (agency not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

2 19-71351

Singh’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due process fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 19-71351