Raghbir Singh v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAGHBIR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 10-71357
Agency No. A098-176-954
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Raghbir 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
NOV 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act, Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010), and we deny the petition for review.
The BIA upheld the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on
inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and declaration regarding the number
of times police allegedly arrested him. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s
adverse credibility determination. See id. at 1046-47 (Under REAL ID,
inconsistencies no longer need to go to the heart of the claim in order to support an
adverse credibility determination, but when the inconsistencies do go to the heart
of the claim, they “doubtless [are] of great weight.”). The agency was not
compelled to accept Singh’s explanations for the inconsistencies. See Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). We reject Singh’s contentions that the
agency’s analysis was deficient. We also reject Singh’s contention that the IJ’s
questioning was improper. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error to prevail on a due process claim). 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).
10-71357 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Finally, Singh’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence
the agency found not credible, and Singh does not point to any record evidence that
compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
with the acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See Shrestha, 590
F.3d at 1048-49.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
10-71357 3

-- 3 of 3 --