FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHHER SINGH, No. 08-72322
Petitioner, Agency No. A098-520-055
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Chher Singh, 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 (“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, Li v. Ashcroft, 378
F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
because the IJ made a specific and cogent demeanor finding, see Arulampalam v.
Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 686 (9th Cir. 2003), and because Singh’s testimony was
inconsistent with his asylum interview statements regarding the nature and extent
of the claimed beating and resulting injury, see Li, 378 F.3d. at 962-64. In the
absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims
fail. 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.
Finally, we reject Singh’s contention that the agency failed to adequately
consider his documentary evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092,
1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must overcome the presumption the agency
considered all the evidence).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72322