Surinder 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
SURINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74129
Agency No. A097-586-573
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Surinder 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
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
FILED
FEB 27 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74129 2
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistencies within Singh’s testimony, and between his testimony
and declaration, regarding the abuse he suffered during his third detention, how
long he was detained, and how long he remained in his village following his
release. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004) (adverse credibility
determination supported by inconsistencies that go the heart of the claim); Kohli v.
Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistencies between
petitioner’s testimony and declaration regarding the degree of abuse supported the
adverse credibility determination); Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th
Cir. 2001) (inconsistencies in testimony regarding the events leading up to
petitioner’s departure supported the adverse credibility determination). In the
absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not
credible, and he points to no other evidence 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 --