FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASBIR SINGH, No. 11-70994
Petitioner, Agency No. A072-483-338
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Jasbir Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the
agency’s factual findings, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir. 2001),
and de novo claims of due process violations, Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532,
535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistent evidence regarding Singh’s identity, inconsistent testimony
regarding Singh’s political party membership and reasons for obtaining a passport,
implausible testimony regarding Singh’s lack of knowledge of elections, and based
on the IJ’s negative demeanor finding. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156
(9th Cir. 2003) (stating that identity is a “key” element of an asylum claim);
Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1043 (finding that inconsistent and implausible testimony
went to the heart of the claim, and supported an adverse credibility finding); Singh-
Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999) (giving special deference to
findings based on demeanor). The agency reasonably rejected Singh’s
explanations for the inconsistencies. See Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275
(9th Cir. 2007). We reject Singh’s contention that the BIA failed to address
evidence on appeal. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010)
(BIA need not “write an exegesis on every contention”). We reject Singh’s
contention that the agency’s findings are based on speculation. The record does
2 11-70994
not support Singh’s due process contention that the IJ failed to act impartially. See
Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a
due process claim). Moreover, we reject Singh’s due process contentions related to
the agency’s reliance on passport evidence he submitted in support of his claim.
See id. In the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
Finally, substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s
CAT claim because it is based on the same testimony found not credible, and he
does not point to any other evidence that compels the finding that it is more likely
than not he would be tortured if returned to India. See id. at 1156-57. We reject
Singh’s contentions that the agency’s analysis of his CAT claim was deficient. See
Najmabadi, 597 F.3d at 990. Thus, Singh’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-70994