Case ID: f-appx_168/html/0206-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jagjit SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71699.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.
    
    Decided Feb. 21, 2006.
    George T. Heridis, Esq., Rai & Associates, P.C., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Papú Sandhu, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Keith Bernstein, Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jagjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Singh is statutorily ineligible for asylum based on the one-year time bar. See Ramadan v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 1218, 1221-22 (9th Cir.2005).

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 over Singh’s withholding of removal claim and CAT claim. Reviewing for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004), we deny the petition. The IJ identified inconsistencies in the record that go to the heart of Singh’s claim of persecution, and the denial of withholding based on the adverse credibility determination must therefore be upheld. See id.

Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony that was found not credible, and he points to no other evidence that the IJ should have considered in making the CAT determination, his CAT claim also fails. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 848 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.