Harjinder 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).
NV/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARJINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74014
Agency No. A075-246-742
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.
Harjinder 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, witholding of removal,
FILED
FEB 25 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

NV/Research 06-74014 2
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and voluntary
departure. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence an adverse credibility determination. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of voluntary departure,
8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), and Singh’s unexhausted challenge to the
government’s fraudulent document report. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on Singh’s submission of fraudulent documents that go to the heart of his
claim, including letters allegedly written by the doctor who treated his injuries, and
by the priest of the gurdwara Singh claims to have attended daily. See Desta v.
Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004); Cf. Yeimane-Berhe v. Ashcroft, 393
F.3d 907, 911-12 (9th Cir. 2004) (reversing adverse credibility determination based
solely on the use of one allegedly fraudulent document where applicant
corroborated testimony and nothing in the record suggested lack of credibility or
knowledge that document was fraudulent). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.

-- 2 of 3 --

NV/Research 06-74014 3
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim
because it is based on the same evidence the IJ found not credible, and Singh
points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured.
See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --