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

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TAJINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-71484
Agency No. A095-585-996
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2009**
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SKOPIL and BEEZER, Circuit Judges.
Tajinder Singh petitions for review of the board of immigration appeals’s
(“BIA”) order rejecting his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture. The BIA affirmed the IJ’s
FILED
DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
decision without issuing an opinion, so “we review the IJ’s decision as the final
agency determination.” Chen v. BIA, 435 F.3d 141, 144 (9th Cir. 2006).
We review questions of law de novo and findings of fact for substantial
evidence. Brezilien v. Holder, 565 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2009).
“[A]dministrative findings of fact are conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator
would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B). We
will uphold the IJ’s credibility determination if it is “supported by a specific,
cogent reason.” Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny Singh’s petition.
The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.
I
An alien seeking asylum must establish both a subjective and an objective
fear of persecution through credible testimony. Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 338
(9th Cir. 1995). The IJ’s adverse credibility finding is well supported by the
material inconsistencies and omissions in Singh’s testimony and documents. See
Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2003). Singh points out no
evidence in the record that compels a contrary result.
II

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Because Singh failed to establish his eligibility for asylum, he also failed to
meet the higher burden required for withholding of removal. See Kumar v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 525 (9th Cir. 2006).
III
The Convention Against Torture prevents the forcible return of “any person
to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would
be in danger of being subjected to torture.” Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186,
1188 (9th Cir. 2003). The alien bears the burden of proving “that it is more likely
than not that he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country of
removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.16(c)(2). Singh presents no additional evidence to
support this claim and fails to meet his burden of proof. See Farah v. Ashcroft,
348 F.3d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (denying an alien’s claim under the
Convention Against Torture when that alien relies on statements found to be not
credible and offers no additional evidence).
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --