NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 20 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YADWINDER SINGH, No. 14-72479
Petitioner, Agency No. A201-106-183
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Yadwinder 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 relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due
process violations, Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2008),
and 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.
We reject Singh’s contentions that the agency violated his due process
rights. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to
prevail on a due process claim).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on omissions in Singh’s asylum application statement and from his credible
fear interview, and inconsistencies with his testimony as to how Singh identified
his attackers as Congress Party members, whether the attackers said anything to
him, and whether they sought to kill him with a sword. See Shrestha, 638 F.3d at
1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the “totality of
circumstances”). We reject Singh’s contentions that the BIA failed to consider his
arguments on appeal, see Antonyan v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1250, 1256-57 (9th Cir.
2011), or that the agency erred by considering his credible fear interview, see Liu
2 14-72479
v. Ashcroft, 640 F.3d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 2011) (IJ reasonably considered
statements made during airport interview and petitioner’s explanations for
discrepancies). Further, Singh’s explanations for the omissions and
inconsistencies do not compel a contrary result. See Lata, 204 F.3d at 1245. 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).
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Singh’s CAT claim
because Singh failed to demonstrate it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to India. See
Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d 1149, 1156 (9th Cir. 2014).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-72479