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NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2010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
GULZAR SINGH, No. 07-72820
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-111-145
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.
Gulzar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand, and
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to
remand. Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2008). We
review de novo due process contentions and we review for substantial evidence
factual findings. Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We
deny the petition for review.
Even if Singh had timely filed his asylum application within one year of
entry into the United States, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility determination because discrepancies regarding Singh’s employment as a
constable police officer in his asylum application go to the heart of his claim. See
Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741-43 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistencies that go to
the heart of the claim from asylum application support an adverse credibility
determination). In the absence of credible evidence, Singh has failed to show
eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d
1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the IJ found not
credible, and he points to no other evidence to show it is more likely than not he
would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See id. at 1156-57.
We deny Singh’s due process claim challenging the BIA’s denial of his
motion to remand because the BIA did not abuse its discretion and Singh failed to
2 07-72820
demonstrate prejudice. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)
(requiring error and prejudice for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-72820