Inderjit Singh v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 535 F. App'x 551 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
INDERJIT SINGH, No. 11-71939
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-679-669
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 24, 2013 **
Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Inderjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the inconsistency between Singh’s testimony and the documentary
evidence regarding whether he was in India in August 2004, and his implausible
explanation for the inconsistency. See id. at 1046-47, 1048 (adverse credibility
determination reasonable under the totality of circumstances); Liu v. Holder, 640
F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2011) (improbable or inadequate explanations further
undermined petitioner’s credibility). We reject Singh’s contention that the IJ
improperly “commingled” his testimony and supporting evidence. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii) (under the REAL ID Act IJ may rely on the consistency of
applicant’s statements “with other evidence of record”). We also reject Singh’s
arguments that the agency erred by not accepting his explanation, see Zamanov v.
Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011) (“the record does not compel the finding
that the IJ’s unwillingness to believe [the explanation] was erroneous”) (internal
citation omitted), or that the IJ applied the wrong legal standard in evaluating it,
see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007). Further, we reject
2 11-71939
Singh’s contention that the IJ discredited corroborating evidence that would have
“cured” his credibility. We do not reach Singh’s argument regarding a lack of
corroboration because the agency made no such finding. See Santiago-Rodriguez
v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir. 2011) (our review is limited to the grounds
relied upon by the agency). 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).
Finally, Singh’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony
found not credible, and he points to no other evidence compelling the finding that
it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to India. See id. at 1156-57.
We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA erred in its analysis of his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-71939