FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MANJIT SINGH WALIA, No. 10-71189
Petitioner, Agency No. A078-659-807
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 17, 2012 **
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Manjit Singh Walia, 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,
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and adjustment of
*
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).
status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial
evidence factual findings and review de novo questions of law. Wakkary v.
Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part
the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Walia’s admission that he presented fraudulent claims and evidence in the
asylum application he submitted in 2000 and in his testimony before an asylum
officer. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1065-67 (9th Cir. 2005); Sarvia-
Quintanilla v. INS, 767 F.2d 1387, 1393 (9th Cir. 1985) (history of dishonesty can
support an adverse credibility finding). Accordingly, in the absence of credible
testimony, Walia’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Walia failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if
returned to India. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1068.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of Walia’s
application for adjustment of status, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), and Walia has
2 10-71189
not raised a colorable due process challenge to this discretionary determination, see
Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 748-49 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
3 10-71189