FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TARSEM SINGH, No. 06-72536
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-560-327
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 5, 2010 **
San Francisco, California
Before: RYMER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LEIGHTON, District
Judge.***
Tarsem Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his application for
*
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).
***
The Honorable Ronald B. Leighton, United States District Judge for
the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture
(CAT). The BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of relief based upon
adverse credibility grounds. We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility finding. The
BIA identified two reasons for its finding—(1) the inconsistency between Singh’s
affidavit and his testimony and (2) the inconsistency between Singh’s statements in
his asylum interview (as reported in the asylum officer’s Assessment of Referral)
and his testimony. Singh did not challenge the BIA’s finding that his affidavit was
inconsistent with his testimony, thus he waived any challenge on this ground. See
Castro-Perez v. Gonzales, 409 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). To the extent the
issue is not waived, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s adverse credibility
determination that (1) Singh’s statements in his testimony and affidavit regarding
details of Singh’s first arrest were inconsistent and undermined Singh’s claim of
persecution and (2) Singh was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for this
inconsistency.
Even if the IJ should not have admitted the Assessment of Referral, there
was no prejudice in its admission. Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.
2000) (“A showing of prejudice is essentially a demonstration that the alleged
violation affected the outcome of the proceedings . . . .” (citation omitted)).
Singh’s affidavit and the Assessment of Referral contained the same facts that were
inconsistent with his testimony. Thus, the admission of the Assessment did not
affect the outcome of the proceedings.
In the absence of credible testimony, Singh failed to demonstrate 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 same testimony found
to be not credible, and he points to no other evidence the IJ should have
considered, substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.