Charanjit 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).
The Honorable Suzanne B. Conlon, United States District Judge for***
the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARANJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71312
Agency No. A077-843-921
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2011**
San Francisco, California
Before: TALLMAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges, and CONLON,
District Judge.***
Charanjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
FILED
FEB 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-71312 2
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because the inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and the asylum officer’s
notes concerning the nature of the mistreatment Singh allegedly suffered during his
two arrests go to the heart of his claim of persecution. See id. at 962-63. In the
absence of credible testimony, Singh failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum or
withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on testimony the agency found not
credible, and no other evidence in the record compels a finding that it is more
likely than not he would be tortured if he returned to India, his CAT claim also
fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --