Bakhtawar 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JLA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BAKHTAWAR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75791
Agency No. A079-282-311
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Bakhtawar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
FILED
DEC 23 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JLA/Research 06-75791 2
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an IJ’s adverse
credibility finding. Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007). We
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Singh’s
application for asylum is time-barred because that finding is based on disputed
facts. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th
Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (“‘questions of law’ as it is used in [the Real ID Act],
extends to questions involving the application of statutes or regulations to
undisputed facts[.]”). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as to
Singh’s asylum claim.
Singh testified inconsistently about whether he knew the people who met at
his farm house had militant links. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
credibility finding based on this testimony because the discrepant accounts of the
circumstances leading to his arrests go to the heart of his claim. See Li v. Ashcroft,
378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, in the absence of credible
testimony, Singh’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

JLA/Research 06-75791 3
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not
credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he
will be tortured in India, his CAT claim also fails. Id. at 1156-57.
Respondent’s January 2, 2008 motion to supplement the administrative
record is granted.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --