Gurdip Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURDIP SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-73990
Agency No. A099-524-984
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 10, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Gurdip Singh petitions for review of a decision by the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”), denying his application for asylum, withholding
of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and
ordering him removed from the United States. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s denial of
FILED
DEC 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Singh’s petition on the basis of the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, and we
review adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act’s substantial
evidence standard. Ling Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014).
Under such standard, the agency’s findings are “conclusive unless any reasonable
adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” Id. (emphasis added)
(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)).
We are satisfied that substantial evidence, such as Singh’s “extremely
troubling” demeanor and “frequent nonresponsive[ness],” the inconsistencies
between his statements and other materials in evidence, and the inherent
implausibility of his account, supports the Board’s affirmation of the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir.
2010).
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).
Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony found to be
not credible. See id. at 1156–57. Singh’s petition for review is therefore denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --