FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASWINDER SINGH GILL, No. 08-70134
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-571-400
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Jaswinder Singh Gill, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his 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”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001), and
we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s determination that Gill’s asylum
application was untimely because that finding is based on disputed facts. See
8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); cf. Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007)
(per curiam) (exercising jurisdiction to consider one-year bar where facts were
undisputed). Accordingly, we dismiss Gill’s asylum claim.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based upon the inconsistencies in Gill’s testimony regarding his role and
participation in political activities, see Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th
Cir. 2004), and Gill’s failure to provide reasonable explanations for the
inconsistencies, see Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, in the absence of credible testimony, Gill’s withholding of removal
claim fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Gill’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence the agency found
not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not
he would be tortured if he returns to India, Gill’s CAT claim fails. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 08-70134