Singh, et al v. Holder, No. 07-73946 (9th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED FEB 25 2011 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KULJINDER SINGH, No. 07-73946 Petitioner, Agency No.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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.