Case ID: f-appx_192/html/0627-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Nirmaljeet SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-76692.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Filed July 26, 2006.
    Nirmaljeet Singh, San Jose, CA, pro se.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michael D. Rowe, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental & Natural Resources Div., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Nirmaljeet Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review adverse credibility findings for substantial evidence, Chebchoub v. INS, 257 F.3d 1038, 1042 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse credibility finding based on petitioner’s submission of a false asylum application, an implausibility with regard to such application, and an inconsistency regarding his political activity. See id. at 1043-45; see also Singh-Kaur v. INS, 183 F.3d 1147, 1151-54 (9th Cir.1999).

Because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he is eligible for asylum, it follows that he did not satisfy the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.2003).

Because petitioner’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony that was found not credible, and he points to no other evidence to support this claim, his CAT claim also fails. 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.