Tehal Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TEHAL SINGH, No. 12-71901
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-697-716
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Tehal 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 under 8
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 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).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility determination
based on discrepancies between Singh’s testimony and record evidence regarding
whether he was a Christian in India and when his home was burned. See id.; see
also Goel v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistency between
testimonial and documentary evidence is proper basis for adverse credibility
finding). Singh’s explanations do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, substantial evidence also supports
the BIA’s finding that Singh has not otherwise established a well-founded fear of
persecution country-wide if he returns to India as a Christian. See 8 C.F.R. §
1208.13(b)(2); see also Prasad v. INS, 47 F.3d 336, 337-38, 340 (9th Cir. 1995)
(record must compel a finding of well-founded fear). Thus, Singh’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail.
Finally, Singh’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same evidence the
agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the record
that compels the finding that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or
2 12-71901
with the acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 12-71901