Kanwaljit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KANWALJIT SINGH GILL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-72010
Agency No. A096-139-534
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Kanwaljit 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
MAR 05 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-72010 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Kin v. Holder, 595
F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based upon the inconsistencies between Gill’s testimony and the affidavits he
submitted regarding the timing and circumstances of his father’s arrests. See Goel
v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (inconsistencies
between testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse credibility
finding where inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim). Accordingly, in the
absence of credible testimony, Gill’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Further, because Gill’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to
be not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more
likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails.
See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --