NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
GURPREET SINGH, No. 08-73825 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Petitioner, Agency No. A096-489-242
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2013**
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, and GRABER and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
In this pre-REAL ID Act case, Petitioner Gurpreet Singh seeks review of a
decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") that adopts an immigration
judge’s ("IJ") ruling, which denied his applications for asylum, withholding of
removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. "Where, as here,
*
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).
the BIA adopts the IJ’s decision while adding some of its own reasoning, we
review both decisions." Lopez-Cardona v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1110, 1111 (9th Cir.
2011). Because the record does not compel the conclusion that Petitioner testified
credibly, we deny the petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B).
The decisions below identify several grounds for an adverse credibility
determination. Most significantly, Petitioner testified that his father was arrested
on August 13, 2001, but he submitted a certificate that showed that his father was
hospitalized between August 9, 2001, and August 16, 2001. Both the BIA and the
IJ found implausible Petitioner’s explanations for why the discharge certificate
shows that his father was hospitalized during the time of the alleged arrest, and the
record does not compel a contrary conclusion. Because one of the identified
grounds for the adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial
evidence and goes to the heart of Petitioner’s claim, we must accept that
determination. Wang v. INS, 352 F.3d 1250, 1259 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Petitioner’s testimony was not credible, and because Petitioner does
not present other evidence that compels the conclusion that it is "more likely than
not" he would be tortured if sent back to India, Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted), the BIA and the IJ
2
permissibly concluded that Petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum,
withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture.
Petition DENIED.
3