NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BAKHSISH SINGH, No. 14-73466
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-939-629
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.
Bakhsish 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 decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
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. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738
(9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the discrepancies between Singh’s credible fear interview, his
supplemental declaration, and his supporting affidavits as to whether he was
detained or threatened with detention by police, and Singh’s non-responsiveness
when asked to explain the discrepancies. See Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034,
1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (adverse credibility determination reasonable under the
“totality of circumstances”). We reject Singh’s contention that the agency erred
by relying in part on his credible fear interview. See Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959,
962-63 (9th Cir. 2004). We also reject his contentions that the BIA failed to
consider his arguments on appeal or ignored evidence. In the absence of credible
testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Jiang, 754
F.3d at 740.
Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the
agency found not credible, and he does not point to any evidence that compels the
finding it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or
acquiescence of the government in India. See id. at 740-41. We reject Singh’s
2 14-73466
contention that the BIA failed to analyze his claim properly. See Najmabadi v.
Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990-91 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA adequately considered the
evidence and sufficiently announced its decision).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 14-73466