Navdeep 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NAVDEEP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73432
Agency No. A099-482-951
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Navdeep 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JUL 09 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-73432 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on divergent accounts in Singh’s asylum application and testimony
concerning why the Congress Party mistreated him and when he received
threatening phone calls. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable
under totality of circumstances). Singh’s explanations for the differences do not
compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.
2011). 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
(9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Singh’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same statements
the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the
record that would compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured if returned to India. See id. at 1156-57. Singh’s contention that the BIA
did not consider corroborating and objective documentary evidence fails because
he has not overcome the presumption of review, see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439

-- 2 of 3 --

08-73432 3
F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006), and his remaining contentions that the BIA did not
properly analyze his CAT claim are belied by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --