Singh v. Holder , 419 F. App'x 709 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AVTAR SINGH, a.k.a. Rajbir Singh, No. 08-70478
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-460-166
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
CHARANJIT KAUR; AMANDEEP No. 08-70480
SINGH,
Agency Nos. A077-382-712
Petitioners, A077-382-710
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Avtar Singh, Charanjit Kaur, and their son, natives and citizens of India,
petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders
dismissing their appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the
Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, including adverse
credibility determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001),
and review de novo questions of law, Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274-75
(9th Cir. 2007). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
as to Singh based on Singh’s admission that he made false statements in his airport
interview, and as to Kaur based on Kaur’s filing of a false asylum application and
supporting affidavits. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1065-67 (9th
Cir. 2005); Sarvia-Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir. 1985) (history
of dishonesty can support an adverse credibility finding). The agency reasonably
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 08-70478
rejected petitioners’ explanations for the false accounts. See Rivera v. Mukasey,
508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, in the absence of credible
testimony, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah
v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We lack jurisdiction to address petitioners’ contention that the IJ failed to
consider country condition evidence in her analysis of their CAT claim because
this argument was not exhausted before the BIA. See Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d
1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2008).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to provide appellate review of
Singh’s claims is belied by the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092,
1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (BIA’s independent analysis and case citation countered the
petitioner’s argument that the BIA did not consider his supplemental evidence on
appeal).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 08-70478