Surinder Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KAD/Research 06-74816
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SURINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74816
Agency No. A097-607-024
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Surinder 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KAD/Research 06-74816 2
removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and
we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because the significant contradiction within the letter of party membership
supports the IJ’s conclusion that several of Singh’s documents may have been
fraudulent, and the genuineness of these documents goes to the heart of Singh’s
claim. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, the IJ
reasonably rejected Singh’s explanations for material omissions in his asylum
application. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2004). In the
absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not
credible, and Singh points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not
he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --