Case ID: f-appx_120/html/0169-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Didar SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-72864, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2005.
    
    Decided Jan. 18, 2005.
    Didar Singh, Hayward, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, No-rah Ascoli Schwarz, Esq., Edward C. Durant, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before BEEZER, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Didar Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). We review for substantial evidence, Malhi v. INS, 336 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir.2003), and deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding because Singh’s testimony was inconsistent regarding key elements of his asylum application, which included his identity and prior arrest for soliciting prostitution. 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 application, including identity and membership in a persecuted group).

Because Singh failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of deportation. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 965 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.