FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASPREET SINGH, No. 07-74515
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-169-770
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted July 11, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: HUG, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jaspreet 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 denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Wakkary v. Holder,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision that petitioner’s asylum
application was untimely. See 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(3); cf. Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479
F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Thus, we dismiss the asylum claim.
We hold that substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of withholding
of removal based on an adverse credibility finding and the failure of petitioner to
provide easily available corroborating evidence. As the BIA found, the petitioner
provided inconsistent, vague statements of his political activities with regard to the
candidates he supported and the year he voted in India. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257
F.3d 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (upholding adverse credibility finding),
superceded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1046 (9th Cir. 2010). Petitioner also failed to provide easily available
corroborating evidence of his claim. See id. (upholding failure to provide
corroboration given negative credibility finding). In the absence of credible
testimony and corroboration, his withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2
Because petitioner’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be
not credible, and he points to no other evidence the BIA should have considered,
substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.
3