Case ID: f-appx_125/html/0849-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Swarn Singh KANG, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71242.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 4, 2005.
    
    Decided April 7, 2005.
    Randhir S. Kang, Law Office of Randhir S. Kang, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Officex of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
      The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Kang’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Swarn Singh Kang, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision summarily affirming the 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 an adverse credibility finding for substantial evidence and will uphold the decision unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. See Singh v. Ashcroft, 367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision. Kang’s testimony was internally inconsistent and inconsistent with his declaration regarding when he was arrested, whether the same police were involved with his arrests, and whether his brother was killed by police. See Pal v. INS, 204 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir.2000). Kang’s testimony also lacked sufficient detail, was vague, and appeared memorized. See Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1152-53 (9th Cir.1999). Finally, substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding based on Kang’s failure to properly identify himself. See id.; Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003) (upholding adverse credibility finding where the IJ’s “credibility findings went to key elements of the asylum application, including identity”).

Because Kang failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1255 (9th Cir.2003).

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.