FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 26 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NARINDER JIT SINGH, No. 11-72971
Petitioner, Agency No. A074-588-652
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 24, 2013 **
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Narinder Jit 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 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 factual
findings, including the agency’s adverse credibility findings. Cortez-Pineda v.
Holder, 610 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Singh claims the police arrested him twice and severely mistreated him
during his detentions. To support these claims, Singh submitted documents
including a letter from a doctor asserting he treated Singh after both arrests and an
affidavit from his father addressing Singh’s arrests, police mistreatment, and
medical treatment. The government conducted an overseas investigation and
concluded that both documents were fraudulent.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility finding based
on Singh’s submission of these documents where Singh testified that they were
accurate and that the doctor and his father would confirm his account of events, but
instead they repudiated the documents and their contents. See Desta v. Ashcroft,
365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding adverse credibility finding based on
doubts about petitioner’s supporting documents and holding genuineness of
documents went to heart of claim). Contrary to Singh’s contention, the IJ
considered his testimony and properly analyzed his credibility. Further, Singh’s
contentions regarding an investigator’s Punjabi fluency and regarding his father’s
understanding and intimidation are unsupported by the record. Accordingly,
2 11-72971
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 statements
the agency found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence in the
record that would compel the finding that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See
id. at 1156-57. Contrary to Singh’s contentions, the IJ considered evidence of
country conditions and properly analyzed his CAT claim.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-72971