Singh v. Holder , 387 F. App'x 786 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DALIP SINGH, No. 07-74619
Petitioner, Agency No. A077-424-559
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Dalip Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
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).
NED/Research
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d
1085, 1088 (9th Cir. 2000), and deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on both the inconsistency between Singh’s testimony and the medical
documents regarding the reasons for his hospitalizations, and the omission from
Singh’s wife’s first affidavit of his December 1997 arrest and detention. See Goel
v. Gonzales, 490 F.3d 735, 739 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistencies between testimony
and documentary evidence support an adverse credibility finding where
inconsistencies go to the heart of the claim). Singh’s explanation for the omission
from his wife’s affidavit does not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS,
204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). 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 evidence the IJ found not
credible, and no other evidence in the record compels a finding that it is more
likely than not Singh would be tortured if returned to India, Singh’s CAT claim
also fails. See id. at 1157.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-74619