NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
RANJODH SINGH, No. 06-72763
Petitioner, Agency No. A079-286-715
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR ., Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Argued and Submitted October 13, 2011
San Francisco, California
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Ranjodh Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s
(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
The IJ rejected Singh’s asylum and withholding claims after finding him not
credible. We uphold such findings unless the record evidence “compels a contrary
result.” Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, we cannot
say that it does.
Singh gave contradictory testimony about the number of times he had been
arrested by the Indian authorities. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043
(9th Cir. 2001) (testimony as to the number of times applicant was arrested before
his departure went to the heart of his claim and supported an adverse credibility
determination). Singh also claimed to have been present when his marriage was
registered, despite previously testifying that he had been in hiding at the time. See
id. (inconsistencies about events leading up to departure could justify adverse
credibility determination); see Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 976 (9th Cir.
2011) (“Material alterations in the applicant’s account of persecution are sufficient
to support an adverse credibility finding.”). These discrepancies, which Singh was
unable to explain when offered the chance, provide substantial evidence for the IJ’s
finding that Singh was not credible. Singh’s claims for asylum and withholding
therefore fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
2
Singh’s CAT claim likewise fails. It is based on testimony the agency found
not credible, and no other evidence in the record, including the country conditions
reports, compels a finding that it is more likely than not Singh would be tortured if
returned to India.
The petition for review is DENIED.
3