Jaswinder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JASWINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71469
Agency No. A097-124-415
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jaswinder 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 and withholding of
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
JUL 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71469 2
substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and
we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Singh’s asylum
application was untimely because that finding was based on disputed facts. See
Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based upon the omissions from Singh’s supporting documents of his father’s
alleged arrest after Singh’s departure from India, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959,
962-63 (9th Cir. 2004), and the discrepancies between Singh’s testimony and the
medical document he submitted, see Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000)
(inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence support an adverse
credibility finding). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, petitioner’s
withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --