Bachittar Singh Chohan 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).
JLA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BACHITTAR SINGH CHOHAN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71893
Agency No. A095-599-669
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bachittar Singh Chohan, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JLA/Research 07-71893 2
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an IJ’s adverse
credibility finding. Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007). We deny
the petition for review.
The agency found Chohan not credible, inter alia, because there were
inconsistencies regarding the circumstances of Chohan’s son’s two arrests and
releases from detention, and the agency reasonably rejected Chohan’s proffered
explanation for the inconsistencies. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042-
43 (9th Cir. 2001) (substantial evidence supports adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies that go to heart of the claim). Substantial evidence also
supports the agency’s credibility determination based on the IJ’s demeanor finding,
see Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 2003) (special deference
given to demeanor findings based on non-verbal communications), and based on
Chohan’s failure to provide corroboration, see Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1092
(9th Cir. 2000) (“where the [agency] has reason to question the applicant’s
credibility, and the applicant fails to produce non-duplicative, material, easily
available corroborating evidence and provides no credible explanation for such
failure, an adverse credibility finding will withstand appellate review.”). In the

-- 2 of 3 --

JLA/Research 07-71893 3
absence of credible testimony, Chohan’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Chohan’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found
not credible, and he points to no evidence showing it is more likely than not he will
be tortured in India, his CAT claim also fails. Id. at 1156-57.
Petitioner’s motion to substitute counsel is granted.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --