FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 14 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BALWANT SINGH, No. 09-73423
Petitioner, A-099-361-176
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 7, 2013**
Portland, Oregon
Before: M. SMITH and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and PRO, Senior District
Judge.***
Petitioner Balwant Singh (“Singh”) petitions for review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the Immigration Judge (“IJ”).
*
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).
***
The Honorable Philip M. Pro, United States District Judge for the
District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
Singh contends the BIA and IJ erred in denying his applications for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
We review the BIA’s and IJ’s decisions for substantial evidence. Kumar v.
Gonzales, 444 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
The IJ’s adverse credibility finding was supported by multiple, specific
references to the record where Singh’s testimony contradicted other record
evidence or was evasive and nonresponsive. For example, Singh claimed to have
been beaten by the police and released after his father and neighbors paid a bribe.
However, the affidavits from those who helped secure Singh’s release make no
mention of either Singh’s injuries or the bribe.
The IJ reasonably denied Singh’s asylum application after finding Singh
failed to submit sufficient evidence to show past persecution on a protected ground
or a well-founded fear of future persecution. The IJ also reasonably found that
Singh’s arrest was part of a legitimate police investigation, not on political
grounds. Additionally, the record evidence was too speculative and generalized to
indicate an individualized risk of future persecution. Because Singh did not
establish eligibility for asylum, he cannot meet the higher burden for withholding
of removal. Dinu v. Ashcroft, 372 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2004).
2
Finally, there is insufficient evidence to show that Singh more likely than
not would be tortured if he is removed. Substantial evidence therefore supports the
IJ’s denial of relief under CAT.
PETITION DENIED.
3