Satinder Singh Baidwan 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).
The Honorable Glenn L. Archer, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for***
the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SATINDER SINGH BAIDWAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-76626
Agency No. A097-102-668
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 16, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: ARCHER, Senior Circuit Judge, and CALLAHAN and BEA, Circuit***
Judges.
Satinder Singh Baidwan, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
FILED
MAY 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we repeat them1
here only as necessary to the disposition of this case.
2
immigration judge ’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”).1
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Baidwan’s asylum
application was untimely because that finding is based on disputed facts. See 8
U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); cf. Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review as to Baidwan’s
asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because the discrepancies regarding the circumstances of his third arrest go to the
heart of his claims. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004).
Accordingly, Baidwan’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Because Baidwan’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the IJ found
not credible, and he offers no other evidence the agency should have considered,
he has failed to establish eligibility for CAT relief. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348
F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --