Balwinder Singh v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALWINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-72496
Agency No. A098-515-812
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Balwinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
NOV 24 2015
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).

-- 1 of 2 --

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, including adverse credibility findings. Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on Singh’s material, inconsistent statements regarding whether the police
visited his wife after he fled, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 (9th Cir. 2004)
(court bound to accept adverse credibility finding where an inconsistency goes to
the heart of the claim), and based on his admitted lies, see Singh v. Holder, 643
F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (“An asylum applicant who lies to immigration
authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story.”). In the absence
of credible testimony, petitioner’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.
See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because petitioner’s CAT claim was based on the same statements that were
found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it
is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with consent or acquiescence of a
public official in India, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-72496 2

-- 2 of 2 --