Parminder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
PARMINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-77057
Agency No. A077-852-529
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2009
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Parminder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his application for
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for
review.
FILED
DEC 16 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
We agree with the BIA that the inconsistencies in Singh’s asylum
application go beyond “minor” inconsistencies. The conflict in the evidence over
Singh’s arrest and the time he spent in the hospital in January 1993 calls into doubt
whether the arrest actually occurred. This inconsistency “‘relates to the basis for
[his] alleged fear of persecution,’” and therefore goes to the heart of his asylum
claim. See Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-42 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Singh
v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1108 (9th Cir. 2006)). Further, the immigration judge
(“IJ”) based his credibility determination, in part, on Singh’s demeanor. We give
credibility determinations that are based on demeanor “special deference.”
Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999).
Substantial evidence supported the IJ’s adverse credibility determination.
Don, 476 F.3d at 741. Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --