Bhupinder Shergill 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.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BHUPINDER SHERGILL SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 04-75205
Agency No. A078-959-021
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted November 6, 2009
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, RYMER and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Bhupinder Shergill Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) based on an adverse
credibility determination. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review
FILED
NOV 17 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

the IJ’s adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence and must uphold the
decision unless the evidence compels a contrary result. Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d
1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s denial of asylum based on an adverse
credibility finding. Singh testified that he drove a taxi from 1998 to 2000 as his
full-time job and was arrested a third time after driving militants in his taxi. In his
application for redetermination of custody status, however, he stated that he was a
farm worker during this period. When questioned about the inconsistency, Singh
was evasive and nonresponsive. Because Singh provided inconsistent statements
regarding the circumstances of his third arrest, the IJ’s adverse credibility finding
is supported. See Kohli v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding
adverse credibility finding was supported based on discrepancies between alien’s
testimony and statements regarding a police detention).
Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily fails
to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony that
the IJ found not credible, and Singh points to no other evidence that should be
considered. See id. at 1157.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --