Kaur 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KAUR SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-72237
Agency No. A079-610-950
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Kaur 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
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
FILED
SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

07-72237 2
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s adverse
credibility determination, Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008),
and we deny the petition for review.
The agency denied Singh’s asylum application as time-barred. Singh does
not challenge this dispositive finding in his opening brief. See Martinez-Serrano v.
INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not specifically raised and
argued are waived). Accordingly, we deny the petition as to Singh’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because the inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and the asylum officer’s
notes with respect to the nature of the mistreatment Singh allegedly suffered during
his first and third arrests, the duration of Singh’s detention following his first
arrest, whether Singh sought medical treatment at a hospital following his second
arrest, and whether Singh reported the incidents to the chief minister, go to the
heart of his claim of persecution. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th
Cir. 2001). Accordingly, Singh’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-72237 3
Singh’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and Singh points to no other evidence that shows it is
more likely than not he will be tortured in India. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --