Raghbir 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RAGHBIR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72067
Agency No. A079-683-156
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Raghbir 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 removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-72067 2
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 2000), and we
deny the petition for review.
The record does not support Singh’s contention that the BIA erred in
concluding the IJ made an explicit adverse credibility determination. See Toufighi
v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 994-95 (9th Cir. 2008) (BIA reasonably interpreted the
IJ’s qualifying remarks and decision as an express adverse credibility
determination).
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because the
IJ properly relied upon inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and his medical
document, see Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2000), as well as evidence
that Singh’s medical document and membership letter in the Akali Dal Mann
organization were not authentic, see Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.
2004). In the absence of credible testimony, Singh failed to establish eligibility for
asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the IJ found to be
not credible, and Singh points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered,

-- 2 of 3 --

07-72067 3
he failed to establish the record compels a finding of eligibility for CAT relief. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --