Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0765-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gurpreet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74686.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 17, 2012.
    
    Filed April 25, 2012.
    Inna Lipkin, Esquire, Law Offices of Inna-Lipkin, Redwood City, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Virginia Lum, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gurpreet 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 have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination because of inconsistencies between Singh’s testimony and the testimony of his witness Gursharanjit Kaur Samra regarding his identity, particularly concerning his Indian driver’s license. See id. In the absence of credible testimony regarding his identity, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See id

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because Singh failed to establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to India. See Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.