FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAJINDER SINGH, No. 07-71753
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-600-248
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010 **
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Rajinder 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 the
agency’s adverse credibility determination, Tekle v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 1044, 1051
(9th Cir. 2008), and we deny the petition for review.
Even if he had timely filed his asylum application, substantial evidence
supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because Singh omitted
from his asylum application that police electrocuted him during his first arrest, see
Husyev v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 1172, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2008), and did not mention
the electrocution or the use of a roller on his legs at his asylum interview, but
instead testified that he was held in solitary confinement and deprived of food and
water, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir. 2004) (omissions and
inconsistencies that go to the heart of petitioner’s claim support an adverse
credibility finding). Singh also failed to provide reasonable explanations for the
inconsistencies and omissions. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th
Cir. 2007) (adverse credibility finding supported where hearing revealed numerous
instances in which petitioner attempted to explain inconsistencies and IJ found
explanations insufficient). Further, because the agency had reason to question
Singh’s credibility, his failure to provide corroborating evidence undermines his
claim. See Sidhu v. INS, 220 F.3d 1085, 1090-92 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence
of credible testimony, Singh failed to establish that he is eligible for asylum and
2 07-71753
withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.
2003).
Finally, because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the
agency found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more
likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-71753