FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 24 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SURINDER MOHAN SINGH; No. 07-74015
HARDEEP SINGH,
Agency Nos. A079-250-397
Petitioners, A079-250-398
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Surinder Mohan Singh (“Singh”), and Hardeep Singh, natives and citizens of
India, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying petitioners’ application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the
petition for review.
The agency found Singh not credible based upon, inter alia, the
inconsistency between Singh’s testimony before the asylum officer, and Singh’s
testimony before the IJ, regarding whether he had provided financial support to a
terrorist organization in India. The agency also found Singh not credible based
upon his submission of two fabricated medical reports.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s credibility determination because
the inconsistency regarding financial support goes to the heart of Singh’s claim,
see Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and Singh failed to
provide a compelling explanation for the testimony he provided to the asylum
officer. Substantial evidence further supports the agency’s finding that the medical
documents were fraudulent. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.
2004) (submission of fraudulent documents going to the heart of the claim may
justify an adverse credibility finding). In the absence of credible evidence, Singh
has failed to show eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal. See Farah,
348 F.3d at 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 07-74015
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the IJ found not
credible, and no other evidence in the record compels a finding that it is more
likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails.
See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-74015