FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 19 2010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
SURINDER SINGH, No. 06-74606
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-570-674
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010 **
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Surinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) 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”).
*
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).
Singh also seeks review of the IJ’s finding that he filed a frivolous application for
asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence findings of fact, including adverse credibility determinations. See
Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001). We review a
determination that an applicant knowingly made a frivolous application for asylum
for compliance with a procedural framework outlined by the BIA. See Ahir v.
Mukasey, 527 F.3d 912, 917 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based upon numerous omissions of and inconsistencies regarding important
incidents, as well as Singh’s admission that an event detailed in the declaration in
support of his asylum application was false. See Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d
1044, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (the initial filing of a fraudulent asylum application,
combined with the repetition of the fabricated narrative in the asylum interview
and hearing before the IJ may justify an adverse credibility finding); Kaur v.
Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1064-67 (9th Cir. 2005) (the retraction of an alleged
incident of mistreatment included in an asylum application is not a minor
discrepancy). Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum
and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003).
2 06-74606
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and Singh does not point to any other evidence that shows it is more
likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim fails. See
id. at 1156-57.
Finally, Singh challenges the IJ’s frivolousness finding by arguing that the IJ
failed to consider his explanation that he was uneducated and on medication during
his hearing. Contrary to this contention, the record reflects that the IJ addressed
and rejected his explanations. See Ahir, 527 F.3d at 917 (stating the procedural
requirements necessary to sustain a finding that a petitioner has filed a frivolous
asylum application).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 06-74606