Jaswinder Singh Gill 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JASWINDER SINGH GILL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70134
Agency No. A095-571-400
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.
Jaswinder Singh Gill, 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-70134 2
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and
we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Gill’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) (exercising jurisdiction to consider one-year bar where facts were
undisputed). Accordingly, we dismiss Gill’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based upon the inconsistencies in Gill’s testimony regarding his role and
participation in political activities, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th
Cir. 2004), and Gill’s failure to provide reasonable explanations for the
inconsistencies, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Gill’s withholding of removal
claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Gill’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found
not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not
he would be tortured if he returns to India, Gill’s CAT claim fails. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --