Manjinder 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KAD/Research 06-70118
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANJINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-70118
Agency No. A095-575-967
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Manjinder 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,
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

KAD/Research 06-70118 2
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Husyev v.
Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny in part and dismiss in
part the petition for review.
The record does not compel the conclusion that Singh established changed
or extraordinary circumstances to excuse his late filed asylum application. See 8
C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(4),(5). Accordingly, Singh’s asylum claim fails.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because Singh lied in his original asylum application about his entry date into the
United States and admitted his lie only when confronted by immigration officials.
See Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir. 1985) (substantial
evidence supported the IJ’s credibility finding where the petitioner admitted, inter
alia, “that he had lied under oath to U.S. immigration officials so that he would not
be deported”); see also Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)
(date of entry is one of the key elements of the asylum application that must be
credibly established by the applicant). In the absence of credible testimony,
Singh’s withholding of removal claim fails. See id.

-- 2 of 3 --

KAD/Research 06-70118 3
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not
credible, and Singh points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not
he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary denial of voluntary
departure. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229c(f), 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). We therefore dismiss the
petition as to Singh’s voluntary departure claim.
We also lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s remaining due process challenge
because he failed to exhaust the issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 676-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --