Bahadur 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BAHADUR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73192
Agency No. A073-427-883
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Bahadur Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of deportation, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-73192 2
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 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 in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because the inconsistencies and omissions with respect to the nature of the
mistreatment Singh allegedly suffered, the number of times he was arrested, and
whether Singh’s brother-in-law was killed in 1989 or abducted in 1994, go to the
heart of his claim of persecution. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.
2004). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum and withholding of deportation claims fail.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s contentions that (1) the IJ applied
an incorrect standard when she denied his CAT claim; (2) his due process rights
were violated because the merits hearing transcript was incomplete; and (3)
translation errors prejudiced his claim such that remand is necessary. See Barron
v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (arguments not raised before the
BIA are unexhausted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --