Iqbal Singh Dhillon 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).
KAD/Research 1
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IQBAL SINGH DHILLON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70812
Agency No. A097-602-205
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Iqbal Singh Dhillon, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KAD/Research 07-70812 2
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Husyev v.
Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because Dillion testified about ongoing police visits to his home but he omitted this
information, without adequate explanation, from his otherwise detailed asylum
application, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 963 (9th Cir. 2004), and his
testimony was inconsistent with his documentary evidence regarding the nature of
his family’s relationship with Simranjit Singh Mann, see Goel v. Gonzales, 490
F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistencies between testimony and documentary
evidence support an adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies go to the
heart of the claim). In the absence of credible testimony, Dhillon’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Because Dhillon’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found
not credible, and Dhillon 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 --