Tirth 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TIRTH SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 09-74003
Agency No. A072-563-553
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Tirth 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
FEB 03 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-74003
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, including the adverse credibility determinations. Chebchoub v. INS, 257
F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on discrepancies between Singh’s testimony and documentary evidence
regarding continuing interest in him by Indian police, and the lack of specificity in
his testimony. See Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007)
(inconsistencies between testimony and documentary evidence that went to the
heart of the claim supported the adverse credibility determination). Accordingly,
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 same testimony the agency
found not credible, and he points to no other arguments showing it is more likely
than not he will be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --