FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 15 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GURVINDER SINGH, No. 13-73254
Petitioner, Agency No. A087-516-108
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Gurvinder 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), and we deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Singh’s vague and inconsistent testimony regarding what he did after the
alleged attack in May 2008. See id. at 1046-47 (inconsistency regarding
underlying events supported adverse credibility determination under the REAL ID
Act’s “totality of the circumstances” standard). The agency was not compelled to
accept Singh’s explanation for the inconsistency. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649
F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 2011). We reject Singh’s contention that the agency’s
analysis was deficient. 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).
Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony
found not credible, and he does not point to any other evidence that shows it is
more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. See id. at 1156-67.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 13-73254