FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AMARJIT SINGH, No. 09-73422
Petitioner, Agency No. A099-779-280
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012 **
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Amarjit 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 application for asylum, withholding of removal, and
protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We review for
*
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).
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 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 8
U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition for review.
The agency reasonably concluded Singh was inconsistent with regard to
where he was held after his first arrest and the location of the 1998 rally. See
Rivera v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1271, 1275 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistent testimony at
two hearings regarding details of abduction); Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 939-40 (9th
Cir. 2000) (inconsistencies between testimony and application regarding injuries
received during assaults). Further, Singh’s explanations for the inconsistencies,
including memory failure due to the passage of time and stress due to his
daughter’s death, do not compel a contrary result. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241,
1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse
credibility finding. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (“In the totality of
circumstances it was a reasonable adverse credibility determination, grounded in
the record and based on real problems with Shrestha’s testimony, not mere
trivialities.”). In addition, we reject Singh’s contention that the agency improperly
disregarded corroborating evidence because the party letter he submitted goes only
to his membership, not his political activities, and because the fact that his son was
2 09-73422
granted asylum does not, without more, support his own claim. Accordingly, in
the absence of credible testimony, we deny the petition as to Singh’s asylum and
withholding of removal claims.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Singh’s CAT claim relies on the same statements the agency found not credible,
and he does not point to any other evidence in the record that would compel a
finding it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the acquiescence
of the government if returned to India. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153,
1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, Singh’s CAT claim fails.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 09-73422