Singh v. Holder , 380 F. App'x 715 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PARAMJIT SINGH; MANJIT KAUR, No. 07-71867
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A079-273-928
A079-273-929
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Paramjit Singh and Manjit Kaur, natives and citizens of India, petition for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an
immigration judge’s decision denying their application for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence adverse
credibility findings, Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008), and
we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding in
light of the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s overseas investigation report
(“INS report”) concluding Singh’s medical records were fraudulent and that his
father’s statements to investigators contradicted the contents of his affidavit. See
Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004). 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).
Because petitioners’ CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found
not credible, and they do not point to any evidence showing it is more likely than
not that they will be tortured in India, their CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-
57.
Petitioners’ contention that the INS report was inadmissible on the basis that
petitioners lacked an opportunity to cross-examine its authors, and because the
report was unreliable, fails because the report was “probative” and its admission
2 07-71867
was “fundamentally fair.” See Zahedi v. INS, 222 F.3d 1157, 1164 n.6 (9th Cir.
2000) (internal quotation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-71867