NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 17 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
KULBINDER SINGH, No. 12-71727 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-688-917
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 10, 2014**
Seattle, Washington
Before: PAEZ, BYBEE, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Kulbinder Singh petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture
(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Petitioner was not
credible. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). The BIA
considered the totality of the circumstances and provided specific, cogent reasons
for its adverse credibility finding. See id. at 1042. For example, Petitioner claimed
that he was arrested in December 2004 while protesting for the release of Simranjit
Mann, but a letter submitted by Mann states that Mann was detained in 2005, 2006,
and 2007 rather than in 2004. Additionally, Petitioner provided inconsistent
testimony regarding the frequency and type of interactions he had with the police
between his two arrests. Because the BIA properly found that Petitioner was not
credible, its determination that Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum
and withholding of removal is supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 1040
(listing relevant factors in determining credibility to include, among other factors,
“consistency between the applicant or witness's written and oral statements,
internal consistency of each statement, and consistency of statements with other
evidence”).
Petitioner’s CAT claim is based on the same evidence that the BIA found
not to be credible, and Petitioner has pointed to no other evidence that would
compel the conclusion “that he would most likely be tortured by or with the
acquiescence of a government official or other person acting in an official
2
capacity” upon removal. Tamang v. Holder, 598 F.3d 1083, 1095 (9th Cir. 2010).
Thus, substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner is
ineligible for CAT protection.
PETITION DENIED.
3