Kamaljit 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
KAMALJIT SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70459
Agency No. A098-846-598
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011**
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Kamaljit 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
FILED
JAN 20 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70459 2
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual
findings, Singh v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 1100, 1105 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the
petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on the discrepancy between Singh’s testimony that the temple was a five
minute walk from his home and the fact that the nearest temple was several miles
away. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001) (sustaining
adverse credibility determination where claims “were implausible in light of the
background evidence”). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s adverse
credibility determination based on Singh’s lack of knowledge of the Shiromani
Akali Dal party. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004)
(approving an adverse credibility conclusion based in part on an expectation that
one who claims active participation in a party has a deeper understanding of that
party’s beliefs). 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).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70459 3
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and he points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered,
substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --