Jasvir 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JASVIR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70132
Agency No. A097-583-753
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jasvir 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
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
FILED
JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70132 2
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse
credibility determination. Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (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 failed
to establish extraordinary circumstances excusing his untimely filed asylum
application because that finding was 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) (exercising jurisdiction to consider one-year bar where facts were
undisputed). Accordingly, we dismiss Singh’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omissions from Singh’s father’s affidavit of Singh’s older brother’s
mistreatment by the police, the filing of a complaint concerning the mistreatment,
and Singh’s father’s detention. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir.
2007) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support an
adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim).
Singh’s explanation for these omissions does not compel a contrary conclusion.
See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). 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 --

08-70132 3
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on 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.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --