Ranjodh Singh v. Holder , 385 F. App'x 722 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RANJODH SINGH, No. 07-74922
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-493-798
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TASHIMA, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Ranjodh Singh (“Singh”), a native and citizen of India who has already been
legally removed, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth 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)(C).
for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against
Torture (“CAT”).
J URISDICTION
We have jurisdiction over the portion of Singh’s petition that seeks review
of the agency’s decision to deny him asylum pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). We
lack jurisdiction, however, over that part of the petition seeking review of the
agency’s denial of his claims for withholding of removal and CAT protection
because these claims are moot, due to Singh having been removed. See Kaur v.
Holder, 561 F.3d 957, 959 (9th Cir. 2009). “We agree with the government that
we cannot give [Singh] any relief with respect to withholding because he has
already been deported and he suffers no collateral consequence from the
withholding decision. There is simply no live controversy.” Id. The same holds
true for Singh’s CAT claim. See id. We therefore dismiss that portion of the
petition that seeks review of the denial of Singh’s withholding of removal and
CAT claims.
D ISCUSSION
With respect to Singh’s asylum claim, we affirm the BIA’s adverse
credibility finding because the BIA’s opinion cites specific, cogent examples of
substantial inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony that bear a legitimate nexus to its
-2-
finding. See Marcos v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2005). For
example, the BIA’s opinion relied on Singh’s contradictory testimony about the
identity of the individual who allegedly pointed a gun at his mother and threatened
to kill his entire family in support of its adverse credibility determination. This
discrepancy in Singh’s testimony is not minor and goes to the heart of his claim
because it calls into question whether the events he testified about ever happened.
The evidence is not such that it would compel any reasonable adjudicator to
conclude that Singh’s testimony was credible. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B);
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001).
We need not decide whether substantial evidence supports the BIA’s
determination that Singh is also ineligible for asylum because there is serious
reason to believe that he committed a serious nonpolitical offense in India before
entering the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(A)(iii). This is because
Singh’s asylum claim fails for the independent reason that he has not met his
burden of proving that he has an objective fear of future persecution. See 8 C.F.R.
§ 208.13(a) (2009). We therefore deny Singh’s petition for review with respect to
his asylum claim.
PETITION DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
-3-
-4-