FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 04 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JASWINDER SINGH, No. 09-73626
Petitioner, Agency No. A088-590-803
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 19, 2011 **
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Jaswinder 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 protection under the Convention Against Torture
*
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).
(“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for
substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the new 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 in part
and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Singh’s admission that he filed a false Canadian asylum application, see
Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1264, 1272 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[L]ies and fraudulent
documents when they are no longer necessary for the immediate escape from
persecution do support an adverse inference.”), and multiple unexplained
inconsistencies in the record regarding significant aspects of his claim, including
his wife’s beating by police, his father’s 2006 arrest, and the number of times
police raided his home between June and August 1988, see Shrestha, 590 F.3d at
1045-48 (adverse credibility determination was reasonable under the REAL ID
Act’s “totality of the circumstances”). We lack jurisdiction to consider Singh’s
new challenges to the IJ’s adverse credibility determination, because he failed to
raise these before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.
2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the
2 09-73626
BIA). 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).
Finally, because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to
be not credible, and he points to no other evidence that shows it is more likely than
not he would be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 09-73626