Kulbir 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KULBIR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-71468
Agency No. A095-592-460
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Kulbir 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, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JAN 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

09-71468 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, including
adverse credibility determinations. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042
(9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on the implausibility of Singh’s testimony that he experienced the events
described in his asylum application, given that his application contained the
identical sequence and details of events contained in another application prepared
by Boota Singh Basi, and that Basi filed before Singh entered the United States.
See Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1110 (9th Cir. 2006) (skepticism as to the
plausibility of testimony may be a proper basis for an adverse credibility
determination if the IJ’s logical inferences are supported by substantial evidence);
see also Fernandes v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse
credibility determination based, in part, on Basi’s testimony that every application
he had ever filed was false supported by substantial evidence). Accordingly, in the
absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and Singh does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more

-- 2 of 3 --

09-71468 3
likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --