Case ID: f-appx_85/html/0637-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sujan SINGH, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-70242.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 12, 2004.
    
    Decided Jan. 15, 2004.
    Madan Ahluwalia, Ahluwalia Law Office, San Mateo, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Alison Marie Igoe, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before BEEZER, HALL, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Sujan Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Cordon-Garcia v. INS, 204 F.3d 985, 990 (9th Cir.2000), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. The record demonstrates that Singh testified inconsistently and implausibly regarding the reasons for his alleged November 1995 arrest and his son’s purported arrest and membership in the All India Sikh Student Federation. See Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir.2001) (inconsistencies that relate to the heart of alien’s asylum claim constitute substantial evidence for an adverse credibility finding); Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1149 (9th Cir.1999) (upholding IJ’s adverse credibility determination based on asylum applicant’s unconvincing demeanor and implausible testimony).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that Singh did not sufficiently explain his failure to produce corroborating documents that could have been easily obtained from his wife who resides in India. See Chebchoub, 257 F.3d at 1044-45 (upholding adverse credibility finding where applicant provided no credible explanation for failure to produce easily available corroborating evidence).

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.