Mohinder 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70823
Agency No. A095-591-588
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2010 **
Before: SKOPIL, FARRIS and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Mohinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a final
decision issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, affirming an Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against
FILED
JUL 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

-2-
Torture (CAT) protection. The IJ determined that because Singh submitted a false
application, he was not credible and not entitled to relief from removal. We deny
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. See
Martinez v. Holder, 557 F.3d 1059, 1060 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting standard of
review), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1883 (2010). The finding is based on “specific,
cogent reasons” found in the record that “go to the heart of the asylum claim.” See
Li v. Holder, 559 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009). Specifically, the individual who
Singh hired to prepare his asylum application testified that Singh’s claims of
persecution and torture are false. Moreover, the witness’s testimony is
corroborated by evidence of another alien’s application, prepared by the same
witness and filed five months before Singh’s application. The two applications are
materially identical as to the factual allegations of persecution and torture.
A petitioner who “repeatedly and persistently lied under oath with respect to
his application for asylum” may be deemed incredible. Martinez, 557 F.3d at
1065. Similarly, “false statements made to establish the critical elements of the
asylum claim” may support an adverse credibility finding. Akinmade v. INS, 196
F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 1999). Such falsehoods go to the heart of a petitioner’s

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
claim and justify denial of asylum. Martinez, 557 F.3d at 1065; Akinmade, 196
F.3d at 956.
Singh thus failed to carry his burden of establishing his eligibility for
asylum. He therefore also failed to meet the higher burden of proving his
eligibility for withholding of removal. See Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 525
(9th Cir. 2006). Because Singh made no argument in his brief regarding the denial
of CAT relief, that issue is waived. See Zetino v. Holder, 596 F.3d 517, 521 n.1
(9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --