NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARJINDER SINGH, No. 15-73072
Petitioner, Agency No. A200-238-233
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 18, 2019**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and LYNN,*** District Judge.
Harjinder 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 applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
*
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).
***
The Honorable Barbara M. G. Lynn, United States District Judge for
the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252,
and we deny the petition for review.
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). Substantial evidence
supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on Singh’s demeanor
and inconsistencies in his testimony and the documentary evidence regarding the
April 2010 attack. See id. Contrary to Singh’s contentions, the agency provided
specific examples in the record and a sufficient explanation to support its finding
that his demeanor indicated a lack of credibility. See Huang v. Holder, 744 F.3d
1149, 1155–56 (9th Cir. 2014). Further, the record demonstrates that the agency
considered Singh’s explanations regarding the discrepancies in his testimony and
documentary evidence but found the explanations unpersuasive. In the absence of
credible testimony, Singh’s claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156–
57 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
2 15-73072