Bikar 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BIKAR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-73104
Agency No. A076-456-548
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bikar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

06-73104 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence adverse credibility findings,
Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007), and we review de novo due
process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003).
We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Singh admitted giving statements at his asylum interview that were
inconsistent with his application and hearing testimony regarding the
circumstances surrounding his second arrest in October 1995, see Don, 476 F.3d at
741-42 (inconsistencies in the details of events forming the basis of petitioner’s
fear go to the heart of the claim), and Singh’s explanations do not compel a
contrary conclusion, see Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). 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 testimony the agency found not
credible, and Singh points to no evidence in the record that compels a finding that
it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim
also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
We reject Singh’s contention the agency’s adverse credibility determination
violated due process by relying on the discrepancies made during his asylum

-- 2 of 3 --

06-73104 3
interview, because Singh admitted he made the inconsistent statements. See Lata,
204 F.3d at 1246 (requiring error and prejudice for due process violation). We also
reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA applied the wrong standard of review. See
8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(f).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --