FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARMINDER SINGH, No. 13-70419
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-347-459
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Harminder 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
*
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).
under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual
findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations
created by the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th
Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Singh’s initial denial of any fear of persecution or torture if returned to
India and his changing explanations for this denial, and based on the issues the
agency noted regarding the letter from the leader of the Shiromani Akali Dal
Mann. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the
totality of circumstances); see also Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962-63 (9th Cir.
2004) (denial of mistreatment during airport interview supported adverse
credibility determination). We reject Singh’s contentions that the agency did not
consider his explanations or otherwise improperly analyzed his case. Singh’s
explanations do not compel the opposite result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Singh’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the same testimony
the agency found not credible, and Singh does not point to any other evidence in
2 13-70419
the record that compels the finding that it is more likely than not he would be
tortured in India. See id. at 1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 13-70419