FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2011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
SUBEG SINGH BHULLAR, No. 08-72966
Petitioner, Agency No. A095-414-384
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Subeg Singh Bhullar, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence findings of fact, including
adverse credibility determinations. Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th
Cir. 2001). We deny the petition for review.
Bhullar testified that he was a member of the Shiromani Akali Dal Mann
party, attended party rallies, and gave a speech at a rally commemorating the death
of martyrs killed at the Golden Temple. Substantial evidence supports the
agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Bhullar’s lack of knowledge
concerning the attack on the Golden Temple and the arrests of the Akali Dal
president. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming
an adverse credibility determination based, in part, on the petitioner’s lack of
knowledge about the political party of which he was an active participant). In the
absence of credible testimony, Bhullar’s asylum and withholding of removal
claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Bhullar failed to establish it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned
to India. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir. 2009).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 08-72966