FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VASU SINGH, No. 12-71630
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-161-261
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 12, 2014**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Vasu 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
relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is
*
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).
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). We deny in part and
dismiss in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s finding that Singh’s asylum
application was untimely filed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); Ramadan v. Gonzales,
479 F.3d 646, 648 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (limiting jurisdiction to questions
of law as applied to undisputed facts).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Singh’s lack of knowledge of basic information regarding Shiromani
Akali Dal, despite his claim that he was involved with the political party and
inconsistencies in Singh’s testimony regarding the injuries he received while in
police custody. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir. 2004). In the
absence of credible testimony, Singh’s withholding of removal claim fails.
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same 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
Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156-57.
Finally, we reject Singh’s contention that the IJ violated his due process
rights by not giving him an opportunity to authenticate his documents. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must show error and prejudice
to establish a due process violation).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.