Gurdev 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
KAD/Research 05-72210
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURDEV SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-72210
Agency No. A075-309-626
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Gurdev 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, withholding of removal, and
FILED
NOV 30 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KAD/Research 05-72210 2
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Husyev v.
Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
because Singh’s testimony was inconsistent with his documentary evidence both
concerning his claimed injuries, and as to whether his business was sold or closed,
and he did not persuasively explain these inconsistencies. See Goel v. Gonzales,
490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistencies between testimony and
documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies
go to the heart of the claim). 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).
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not
credible, and Singh points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not
he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --