Manjit 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.
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MANJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72740
Agency No. A77-835-411
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Manjit 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 (“CAT”). We have
FILED
DEC 22 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse
credibility finding and will uphold the determination unless the evidence compels a
contrary result. Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007). We review
de novo constitutional due process challenges to immigration decisions. Cinapian
v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition.
Contrary to Singh’s assertion, the record shows the IJ made an explicit
adverse credibility determination. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse
credibility finding based on Singh’s submission of a fraudulent medical document.
See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding agency’s
reliance on the submission of fraudulent documents, the genuineness of which
went to the heart of the petitioner’s claim). Accordingly, his asylum and
withholding claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
The record also belies Singh’s assertion that the IJ and the BIA failed to
consider his CAT claim. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of his
CAT claim because it is based on the same evidence that the agency found to be
not credible, and Singh points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than
not he will be tortured. See id. at 1157.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Finally, we reject Singh’s claim that the IJ violated his due process rights by
denying his request for a continuance because Singh was not prevented from
reasonably presenting his case. See Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620
(9th Cir. 2006). The IJ granted Singh a five-month continuance in which to
prepare and send interrogatories to the government’s investigators in India in order
to attempt to rebut the evidence that the medical document was fraudulent, but
Singh failed to do so. Singh did not proffer any other evidence to the IJ at the next
hearing. Thus, the IJ did not err in denying another continuance. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --