FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARVINDER SINGH SANGHA, No. 06-74226
Petitioner, Agency No. A075-309-909
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010 **
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Harvinder Singh Sangha, 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
*
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).
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence,
Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies in the record regarding the timing and circumstances of
Sangha’s second arrest in 1995, see id. at 741-42, and because he changed his
testimony when confronted with these inconsistencies, see Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d
1250, 1256-57 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, Sangha’s failure to provide evidence
corroborating his claim supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination.
See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1044-45 (9th Cir. 2003). In the absence of
credible testimony, Sangha’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Sangha’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency
found not credible, and he points to no other evidence that shows it is more likely
than not he will be tortured in India, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.
We lack jurisdiction to review Sangha’s claim based on his I-130 visa
petition, because he failed to exhaust the issue before the BIA. See Barron v.
2 06-74226
Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 06-74226