FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANJINDER SINGH, No. 07-71983
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-105-712
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Manjinder 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,
and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Rivera v.
Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th Cir. 2007), and we deny the petition for
review.
Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility determination
based on inconsistencies within Singh’s testimony and between his testimony and a
doctor’s letter regarding the treatment he received after his arrest. See id. at 1275
(inconsistencies regarding details of abduction went to the heart of the claim).
Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s adverse credibility findings related to
Singh’s identity, including discrepancies regarding Singh’s birthdate, age, and
father’s name. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003)
(upholding adverse credibility finding where inconsistencies went to key elements
of the asylum claim, including identity). Singh’s explanations for the
inconsistencies and discrepancies do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v.
INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, substantial evidence supports
the IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on the IJ’s negative assessment of
Singh’s demeanor. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir. 1999)
(“special deference” given to credibility determinations that are based on
demeanor). In the absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156.
2 07-71983
Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not
credible, and he does not point to any evidence that shows it is more likely than not
that he will be tortured if returned to India, his CAT claim also fails. See id. at
1156-57.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 07-71983