Singh v. Holder , 416 F. App'x 616 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KULJINDER SINGH, No. 07-73946
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-138-120
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Kuljinder 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact,
including adverse credibility determinations, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038,
1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and de novo claims of due process violations in immigration
proceedings, Sandoval-Luna v. Mukasey, 526 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2008). We
deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies regarding Singh’s identity, the nature and circumstances
of the political activities in which he was involved, and the nature of the harms he
suffered. See Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043; Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies
went to key elements of the asylum claim, including identity). 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 same testimony found to be not
credible, and Singh does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more
likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
2 07-73946
Finally, Singh’s contention that the IJ’s hostile manner violated his due
process rights fails. See Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 972 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-73946