Case ID: f-appx_134/html/0215-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joginder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-74679. Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 17, 2005.
    Pardeep Singh Grewal, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Thankful T. Vanderstar, Esq., Elliot Rockier, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joginder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his applications for asylum, withholding of removal and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We will not disturb the IJ’s adverse credibility determination unless the record compels a different result, Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003), and we deny the petition for review.

The IJ found Singh’s explanation for possessing passports under two different names to be unconvincing. The IJ also found Singh unresponsive when questioned about writings attributed to him in a letter from his political party. Because the IJ has offered specific, cogent reasons to doubt Singh’s identity, the IJ’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence. See id. Singh’s failure to establish eligibility for asylum necessarily results in failure to establish eligibility for withholding of removal. See id.

The IJ’s denial of relief under the CAT is also supported by substantial evidence. See id. at 1157.

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.