Sarwan 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).
AR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SARWAN SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-73248
Agency No. A096-144-299
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Sarwan 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, withholding of removal, and
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

AR/Research 05-73248 2
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination, Gui v. INS, 280 F.3d 1217, 1225 (9th Cir. 2002), and
deny the petition for review.
Even though the IJ erred in her one-year time bar finding, see Cinapian v.
Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Where . . . the government alleges
an alien’s arrival date in the Notice to Appear, and the alien admits the
government’s allegation before the IJ, the allegations are considered judicial
admissions rendering the arrival date undisputed.”), substantial evidence supports
the IJ’s adverse credibility determination because Singh failed to establish
sufficiently and affirmatively his identity, see Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming negative credibility finding based on, inter alia,
discrepancies regarding identity), and because the IJ made a specific and cogent
demeanor finding, see Arulampalam v. Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 686 (9th Cir.
2003). In the absence of credible testimony, Singh failed to establish eligibility for
asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
Singh waives any challenge to the IJ’s denial of relief under the CAT by
failing to argue it in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256,
1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996).

-- 2 of 3 --

AR/Research 05-73248 3
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --