Mohan 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).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHAN SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74546
Agency No. A097-604-924
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.
Mohan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
DEC 23 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 06-74546 2
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse
credibility determination, Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008),
and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that it was implausible that
Singh would visit the United States on several occasions following his arrest and
brutal beating in 1998 and not seek asylum, despite knowing that such relief was
available to him. See Loho v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 1016, 1017-19 (9th Cir. 2008)
(petitioner’s voluntary return to her home country inherently undermined her
testimony that she experienced past suffering, and therefore supported an adverse
credibility finding). In the absence of credible testimony, Singh has failed to
establish he is eligible for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found
not credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not
he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --