FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PARAMJIT SINGH, No. 08-72709
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-537-234
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Paramjit 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).
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003),
and we review de novo due process claims, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d
1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the letter Singh submitted purporting to be from the All India Sikh
Student’s Federation in support of his asylum claim but was dated before he came
to the United States, his inconsistent explanations for the letter, and his omission
from his asylum application and his direct testimony that he twice suffered injuries
that resulted in hospitalization. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir.
2004) (an adverse credibility finding may be based on the submission of possibly
fraudulent documents); Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010)
(omission of a “dramatic incident” from petitioner’s asylum application and direct
testimony was significant enough to support an adverse credibility finding). In the
absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding claims fail. See
Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
2 08-72709
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the testimony the agency found not
credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he
will be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at 1156-57.
We lack jurisdiction to review Singh’s claim that the IJ violated his due
process rights by instructing his counsel to “move on” with questioning because
Singh failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678
(9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 08-72709