Tarsem 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).
PR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TARSEM SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70668
Agency No. A097-103-079
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Tarsem 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 and withholding of removal.
FILED
JAN 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

PR/Research 07-70668 2
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
findings of fact, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001), and de
novo questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.
2003). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on
the internal inconsistency in Singh’s testimony regarding the harm he suffered
during his second arrest, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-64 (9th Cir. 2004),
and based on the inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and his supporting
affidavits regarding when and where he sought medical treatment and where he hid
after his third arrest, see Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043 (adverse credibility
determination supported in part based on inconsistencies relating to the events
leading up to petitioner’s departure). 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 vague contention that the IJ violated his due process rights because
he did not listen to Singh’s testimony and failed to apply the appropriate asylum
standard is not supported by the record. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th
Cir. 2000) (requiring error to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --