Jaswinder Singh Billing v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASWINDER SINGH BILLING,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 12-70762
Agency No. A075-307-053
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 7, 2016**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and WHALEY,*** Senior
District Judge.
Jaswinder Singh Billing, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) order dismissing his appeal from an
FILED
JAN 12 2016
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).
*** The Honorable Robert H. Whaley, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

immigration judge’s (IJ) decision denying his claims for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
In this pre-REAL ID Act case, the Board must identify a “specific, cogent
reason” supporting its adverse credibility finding. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d
1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 2001). At least one of the reasons that gave rise to the adverse
credibility finding must “go to the heart of [the] asylum claim.” Id. at 1043
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility
determination. See id. at 1042. Billing’s testimony was internally inconsistent and
conflicted with information provided by Billing’s father. The Board reasonably
determined that Billing had not credibly established essential facts relating to his
arrests and the events leading up to his departure from India, and we may not
reverse the Board’s decision unless “any reasonable adjudicator would be
compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). The events
leading up to Billing’s departure from India are at the heart of his claim for asylum.
In the absence of credible testimony, Billing’s claims for asylum and withholding
of removal fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
12-70762 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Billing’s CAT claim is based on his own testimony and country background
evidence. The Board determined that Billing’s country background evidence did
not independently support his claim for CAT relief, and Billing does not contest
that determination on appeal. The only remaining evidence in support of Billing’s
CAT claim is testimony that was found to be not credible. Thus, the Board’s
rejection of his CAT claim was supported by substantial evidence. See Shrestha v.
Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
12-70762 3

-- 3 of 3 --