FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURJANT SINGH, No. 09-72033
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-262-856
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 11, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, M. SMITH, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Gurjant Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (Board) final order dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying his asylum, withholding of removal,
and Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims. Adverse credibility findings are
*
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).
reviewed under the “highly deferential” substantial evidence standard and the
Board’s decision shall only be reversed if the petitioner shows that the evidence
compels a contrary conclusion. Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.
2004). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and deny the petition.
Here, the Board discussed specific inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony, his
applications for asylum and his witness’s testimony. First, numerous
inconsistencies were present in his separate applications for asylum in Canada and
the United States including the dates and lengths of his arrests in India. Second,
Singh’s testimony regarding the two applications was internally inconsistent.
Material factual differences existed between his testimony and his Canadian
asylum application regarding his alleged association with a militant group. Finally,
there were inconsistencies between his testimony and his own witness’s testimony
pertaining to one of his arrests. Multiple inconsistencies taken together can
“deprive the claim of the requisite ring of truth, thereby supplying substantial
evidence that will sustain [an] adverse credibility determination.” Rizk v. Holder,
629 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because
no reasonable factfinder would be compelled to reach the opposite conclusion, we
hold that substantial evidence supports the Board’s adverse credibility
determination.
In the absence of Singh’s testimony, substantial evidence supports the
Board’s determination that Singh failed to establish past persecution or a well-
founded fear of future persecution from the Indian police, and therefore he is not
eligible for asylum. Valderrama v. I.N.S., 260 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir. 2001). A
petitioner’s failure to satisfy the standard applicable to asylum applications
necessarily precludes his or her satisfying the more stringent standard for
withholding of removal. Alvarez-Santos v. I.N.S., 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.
2003). Singh’s withholding of removal claim therefore fails.
Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony that the Board found not
credible, and he provides no additional evidence that the Board should have
considered regarding the likelihood of torture if he is returned to India.
Accordingly, his CAT claim also fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156–57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION DENIED.