Rupinder Singh v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RUPINDER SINGH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 13-70796
Agency No. A088-394-576
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Rupinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding
of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
FILED
JAN 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards
governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act.
Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition
for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on Singh’s testimony, for the first time on redirect during a continued
hearing, regarding an anonymous complaint he filed and the subsequent raid on his
workplace. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility finding was reasonable under the
totality of the circumstances); see also Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,1245 (9th Cir.
2000) (petitioner’s explanations did not compel a contrary conclusion). In the
absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We do not reach Singh’s contentions regarding the merits of his claims.
This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s seeking prosecutorial
discretion or deferred action from the Department of Homeland Security. See
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (AADC), 525 U.S. 471,
483-85 (1999) (stating that prosecutorial discretion by the agency can be granted at
any stage, including after the conclusion of judicial review).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
13-70796 2

-- 2 of 2 --