FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NAVDEEP SINGH SIDHU, No. 07-72047
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-600-181
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Navdeep Singh Sidhu, native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings.
Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based upon the IJ’s finding that Sidhu’s demeanor was not credible, see Singh-
Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999), and upon the IJ’s finding that he
failed to establish his identity, given the discrepancies in his testimony and his
admissions that he gave Canadian authorities misleading information regarding his
name and birthdate, see Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
Because Sidhu failed to satisfy the lower burden for asylum, he has also
failed to establish his eligibility for withholding of removal. See Farah, 348 F.3d
at 1156.
Because Sidhu’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not
credible, and he points to no evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be
tortured in India, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
Finally, Sidhu’s contention that the IJ lacked authority to hold a second
hearing lacks merit. Not only do the regulations permit the IJ to hold a hearing, see
8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b), the record shows Sidhu agreed to a second hearing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 07-72047