FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURPREET SINGH CHAHAL, No. 11-73712
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-665-617
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 7, 2015* *
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
On February 10, 2015, the court granted the respondent's unopposed motion
to stay proceedings. On March 20, 2015, the respondent informed the court that
Gurpreet Singh Chahal is not a candidate for prosecutorial discretion, and
requested that this case move forward. The stay of proceedings is hereby vacated.
*
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).
Chahal, 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
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), and we deny the petition for review.
The agency found Chahal not credible based on the omission of significant
incidents and information from affidavits provided by his wife and mother in
support of his claim. Substantial evidence supports this determination. See id. at
1048 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the “totality of
circumstances”). Further, we reject Chahal’s contentions that the agency’s
credibility analysis was incomplete or insufficient. Thus, in the absence of credible
testimony, Chahal’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Chahal’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same
evidence the agency found not credible, and Chahal does not point to any other
evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be
2 11-73712
tortured by or with the acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See id.
at 1156-57. We reject Chahal’s contention that the agency decisions were
insufficient. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency
need not “write an exegesis on every contention”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 11-73712